Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Turbo3D: Ultra-fast Text-to-3D Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Turbo3D claims a text-to-3D system that produces 3D Gaussian assets in 0.35 seconds while outperforming prior baselines on CLIP and VQA scores.

desk verdict Solid systems paper: 0.35s text-to-3D via dual-teacher distillation and latent GS-LRM; needs error bars and a consistency check but merits review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04470 v1 pith:IJQQXKFM submitted 2024-12-05 cs.CV

Hanzhe Hu , Tianwei Yin , Fujun Luan , Yiwei Hu , Hao Tan , Zexiang Xu , Sai Bi , Shubham Tulsiani
show 1 more author
Kai Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords text-to-3Dgenerationmulti-viewdiffusiondistillationdual-teacher3DGaussiansplattinglatent-spacereconstructionfew-stepObjaverse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Turbo3D is a system designed to make text-to-3D generation as fast as modern text-to-image generation. The paper claims that a four-step, four-view diffusion generator, distilled from a multi-view teacher together with a single-view photo-realism teacher, can produce view-consistent and realistic multi-view images quickly, and that a latent-space Gaussian reconstructor can lift those images to 3D without decoding them to pixels. If this is right, the speed gap between 2D and 3D generation largely disappears: 0.35 seconds on a single A100, with the highest CLIP score (27.61) and VQA score (0.76) among the compared methods. Training uses about 400k Objaverse instances, and evaluation uses 400 DreamFusion prompts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dual-teacher distillation objective of Eq.~7, a sum of two distribution-matching terms: one against a multi-view diffusion teacher for cross-view consistency and one against a single-view diffusion teacher for per-view photorealism, with the second weighted by $\lambda = 1$. The other component is latent GS-LRM, a feed-forward transformer that reconstructs 3D Gaussians directly from the four multi-view latents instead of decoded pixels, supervised by pixel-space novel-view rendering losses. The student generator is a 4-step diffusion transformer conditioned on Plücker embeddings for camera awareness.

What would settle it

Render the four generated views and also render novel views from the reconstructed Gaussians for the same prompts; if the dual-teacher student shows visibly lower geometric or pixel consistency across views than the multi-view-teacher-only student while matching it on CLIP and VQA, the dual-teacher balance claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ultra-fast text-to-3D generation is possible without sacrificing quality by combining two ideas. First, instead of distilling the slow multi-view teacher alone, the authors distill the student with two teachers: a multi-view teacher supplies a distribution-matching loss that keeps the four generated views consistent, while a single-view teacher adds a second distribution-matching loss that pulls each view toward photorealistic natural-image appearance; the authors call this dual-teacher distillation and show it counteracts the compounded synthetic-looking mode collapse that occurs when the multi-view teacher is distilled by itself. Second, they replace the pixel-space GS-LRM reconstructor with a latent GS-LRM that consumes the generator's latent codes directly, eliminating the image decoding step and halving the transformer sequence length. With these components, Turbo3D reports the best CLIP score (27.61) and VQA score (0.76) among compared methods at 0.35 seconds of total inference on a single A100, and its distilled student matches the multi-step teacher nearly head-to-head in a user study (50.6% preference).

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumption that adding the single-view teacher's realism loss to the distilled student does not quietly weaken agreement among the four generated views, because the paper reports no direct measurement of multi-view consistency and no ablation of the balancing weight.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single A100 can turn a text prompt into a renderable 3D Gaussian asset in 0.35 seconds, making interactive text-to-3D feasible.
  • The distilled 4-step generator nearly matches the multi-step multi-view teacher on quality, with CLIP 27.61 versus 28.04 and a 50.6% pairwise user preference, suggesting the 4-step student can replace the slow teacher in practice.
  • Operating on latents rather than pixels accounts for roughly a 22% end-to-end speedup at 256 resolution and 21% at 512, with no measurable change in CLIP or VQA scores.
  • Adding the single-view teacher recovers most of the quality lost in naive distillation, lifting VQA from 0.69 to 0.76, which addresses the mode-collapse failure directly.
  • At 512 resolution Turbo3D still runs in 1.28 seconds while scoring 27.66 CLIP and 0.78 VQA, indicating the speed advantage persists at higher resolution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test is to measure multi-view consistency directly, for example by comparing novel-view renderings from the reconstructed Gaussians; the paper does not report such a metric, so a silent consistency drop would not appear in the CLIP and VQA tables.
  • The same dual-teacher recipe could transfer to other latent multi-view generators or to video and 4D generation, where a multi-view consistency teacher and a photorealism teacher play analogous roles.
  • Because the reconstructor consumes latents directly, the pipeline could plausibly be trained end-to-end from text to 3D without ever decoding to pixels, pointing toward fully latent 3D generation systems.
  • The 512-resolution results suggest the speed-quality frontier is not fixed at 256; extending the latent design to still higher resolutions may preserve most of the speed advantage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Turbo3D is a text-to-3D system that generates 3D Gaussian splatting assets in about 0.35 s on a single A100 GPU. It distills a multi-step, multi-view diffusion model into a 4-step, 4-view latent diffusion generator using a novel Dual-Teacher objective (Eq. 7), which combines a multi-view DMD term for consistency with a per-view single-view DMD term for realism. The generated multi-view latents are then directly fed into a latent-space GS-LRM reconstructor, avoiding VAE decoding and halving the transformer sequence length. The paper reports state-of-the-art CLIP (27.61) and VQA (0.76) scores on 400 DreamFusion prompts, a user study with 56 participants and 1120 pairwise comparisons, and ablations for both the dual-teacher distillation and the latent GS-LRM components.

Significance. If the claims hold, Turbo3D is a meaningful step toward real-time text-to-3D generation, with practical value for interactive content creation. The dual-teacher distillation is a plausible and interesting mechanism for counteracting the mode collapse that arises when distilling a multi-view teacher fine-tuned on Objaverse, and the latent GS-LRM is a clean efficiency contribution. The user study's result that the distilled student is on par with its own teacher (50.6% win rate) is a credible demonstration that the distillation preserves overall quality. However, the evaluation does not directly measure multi-view consistency, which is load-bearing for any text-to-3D method that reconstructs geometry from a small set of generated views.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (7)] The dual-teacher objective is the core novelty, but its balancing hyperparameter λ is set to 1 with no ablation, and no metric in the paper directly measures multi-view consistency. The single-view DMD term treats each view independently, so it can pull the student's joint distribution away from the MV teacher's consistency envelope; since the latent GS-LRM reconstructs geometry from the four generated views, degraded inter-view agreement would hurt the final 3D asset even if per-view CLIP/VQA scores remain high. Tables 1–3 report only per-view text-alignment metrics, and the user study (Fig. 5) does not isolate consistency. Please add a λ sweep (e.g., 0, 0.3, 1, 3) and report a cross-view consistency metric (e.g., pairwise LPIPS/PSNR among generated views, or reconstruction fidelity against held-out views of Objaverse objects).
  2. [§5.1 'Metrics'] All quantitative comparisons in Tables 1–4 are single-run point estimates on 400 prompts, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The abstract and Table 1 claim superiority 'by a significant margin,' but without variance estimates the reader cannot assess whether the CLIP/VQA gaps are meaningful. Please report per-prompt standard errors, confidence intervals, or results across multiple seeds, especially for the headline comparisons against Instant3D and LGM.
  3. [§5.1 'Baselines'] The image-to-3D baselines (TripoSR, SV3D) are evaluated by first generating an input image with Flux, which couples their performance to the text-to-image model and is not a standard text-to-3D protocol. Moreover, the user study excludes SV3D and TripoSR, so the claim of 'comparable quality with previous state-of-the-art' rests only on the point estimates in Table 1 for those methods. Please either use a fixed set of reference images from the prompt set, report results across multiple Flux samples, or restrict the headline claims to text-to-3D baselines (Instant3D, LGM).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] There is a typo: 'Objverse-style' should be 'Objaverse-style.'
  2. [§3.2] Equation (2) contains a double colon after 'ϵ:' that should be a single colon or a period.
  3. [§5.1 'Implementation Details'] The 'internal DiT' text-to-image model is not described or publicly released, which limits reproducibility; please provide architectural details or a reference to the model.
  4. [Fig. 5] The win-rate bar chart does not report error bars or the number of comparisons per pair; reporting the count per pair and a confidence interval would strengthen the user-study conclusions.
  5. [Table 2] The row label 'Few-step Model (MV Teacher)' is confusing because the teacher is multi-step, while the row describes distillation with only the MV teacher; consider renaming to 'Distilled, MV-only' and 'Distilled, dual-teacher.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Turbo3D's claims rest on external training data, held-out metrics, and independent baselines; distillation fidelity to teacher is legitimate.

full rationale

I examined the paper's derivation chain for reductions where an output is equivalent to its input by construction. The core pipeline trains a multi-view teacher on Objaverse, distills a 4-step student with the dual-teacher objective in Eq. (7), and reconstructs 3D Gaussians with a latent GS-LRM. Eq. (7) is a training loss combining KL divergences to the multi-view and single-view teacher distributions; it is not a prediction or a metric. The paper's quality claims are supported by held-out CLIP/VQA scores on 400 DreamFusion prompts, a user study, and comparisons to external baselines (TripoSR, SV3D, Instant3D, LGM). The user study's 50.6% win rate against the MV teacher is a standard distillation fidelity check comparing two different models, not a circular argument. The latent GS-LRM is trained from scratch and compared to the pixel-space GS-LRM, reporting equivalent CLIP/VQA with better speed, so it is not a renaming of a known result. Self-citations to DMD and GS-LRM are background building blocks with independent support; they do not carry the central claim by themselves. The absence of a direct multi-view consistency metric and the lack of a lambda ablation are correctness/completeness limitations, not circularity. Therefore, the paper's contribution is self-contained and empirically grounded; no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core mathematical machinery (DMD, score functions) is standard and cited. The method-specific assumptions are about the internal backbone, the datasets, and the teacher distributions. No free parameters are fitted to the evaluation benchmarks; lambda, K, and step count are hand-chosen hyperparameters.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda (SV teacher loss weight) = 1
    Chosen by hand in Eq. 7; no ablation over lambda is reported, yet it controls the balance between multi-view consistency and per-view realism.
  • number of views K = 4
    Set to 4 for inference; training samples 4 or 8 views. The reconstructor is trained and evaluated at 4 views.
  • number of student diffusion steps = 4
    Few-step generator runs 4 denoising steps; the paper does not sweep 1, 2, 4, 8 steps, so 4 is a design choice.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Distribution Matching Distillation approximates reverse KL divergence via score function difference (Eq. 5-6)
    Borrowed from DMD/DMD2; the paper relies on the validity of this approximation for both teachers.
  • domain assumption The internal DiT text-to-image model can be fine-tuned into a multi-view model with Plücker embeddings and retains enough priors for 3D generation
    Section 5.1 and supplementary Sec. 7 describe fine-tuning an internal, unreleased model; the results are contingent on this backbone.
  • domain assumption Objaverse renders with Cap3D captions provide sufficient training signal for both the generation and reconstruction models
    Section 5.1 describes training on ~400k/730k instances; no analysis of domain gap between Objaverse and natural images is provided beyond the dual-teacher fix.
  • domain assumption The single-view teacher is trained on large-scale high-quality aesthetic images and provides a useful realism signal for 3D assets
    Introduced in Sec. 4.1; the paper assumes this teacher's distribution is appropriate for multi-view object images.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Turbo3D: Ultra-fast Text-to-3D Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJQQXKFM

@misc{pith2026241204470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Turbo3D: Ultra-fast Text-to-3D Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJQQXKFM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04470}
}
read the original abstract

We present Turbo3D, an ultra-fast text-to-3D system capable of generating high-quality Gaussian splatting assets in under one second. Turbo3D employs a rapid 4-step, 4-view diffusion generator and an efficient feed-forward Gaussian reconstructor, both operating in latent space. The 4-step, 4-view generator is a student model distilled through a novel Dual-Teacher approach, which encourages the student to learn view consistency from a multi-view teacher and photo-realism from a single-view teacher. By shifting the Gaussian reconstructor's inputs from pixel space to latent space, we eliminate the extra image decoding time and halve the transformer sequence length for maximum efficiency. Our method demonstrates superior 3D generation results compared to previous baselines, while operating in a fraction of their runtime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our Turbo3D text-to-3D system. Turbo3D generates high-quality 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) assets from user prompts in less than 1 second on a single A100 GPU. It’s a two-stage pipeline consisting of a highly efficient latent-space few-step multi-view (MV) generator and single-step MV reconstructor. Note that we visualize latents as RGB images and 3DGS assets as point clouds in the pipeline figure for cl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dual-teacher distillation framework in our Turbo3D. Note that latents are visualized as RGB images for clarity. We aim to distill a multi-step multi-view teacher generator (right, green) into a few-step multi-view generator (left, blue). Our few-step MV student generator is conditioned on Plucker embeddings for better 3D awareness. Similar to [ ¨ 59], we optimize the student generator using distribution matching obj… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We compare the renderings of pixel GS-LRM and la [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of our Turbo3D against baselines LGM [46] and Instant3D [16]. Among these methods, Our method generates the most detailed and physically plausible 3D assets, closely adhering to the provided text prompts. In contrast, LGM tends to generate broken assets with…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: User study results comparing our Turbo3D to base￾line LGM [46], Instant3D [16], and our slow MV teacher. Our Turbo3D is consistently preferred over baseline LGM and In￾stant3D, while having on-par preference with our MV teacher. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation of our Dual-teacher distillation algorithm. Naively distilling MV teacher (middle column) causes compound mode collapse (see Sec. 4.1), producing overly smooth synthetic-looking assets. Our dual-teacher distillation (right column) fixes the issue and generates…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Interface example for user study. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When Does An Extra View Help? Adapting Single-View 3D Reconstruction with Extra Imagery

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ASV3D improves single-view 3D reconstruction by using one extra unposed photo, with a consistency-based gate selecting which image conditions each generated view.

  2. LL3M: Large Language 3D Modelers

    cs.GR 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multi-agent LLM system generates editable 3D assets as Blender Python code, using documentation retrieval and visual self-critique to refine results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Ren- derdiffusion: Image diffusion for 3d reconstruction, inpaint- ing and generation

    Titas Anciukevi ˇcius, Zexiang Xu, Matthew Fisher, Paul Hen- derson, Hakan Bilen, Niloy J Mitra, and Paul Guerrero. Ren- derdiffusion: Image diffusion for 3d reconstruction, inpaint- ing and generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 12608–12618, 2023. 2, 3

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Text2tex: Text-driven tex- ture synthesis via diffusion models

    Dave Zhenyu Chen, Yawar Siddiqui, Hsin-Ying Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, and Matthias Nießner. Text2tex: Text-driven tex- ture synthesis via diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 18558–18568, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects

    Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 13142–13153, 2023. 2, 4, 6, 12

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Objaverse-xl: A universe of 10m+ 3d objects

    Matt Deitke, Ruoshi Liu, Matthew Wallingford, Huong Ngo, Oscar Michel, Aditya Kusupati, Alan Fan, Christian Laforte, Vikram V oleti, Samir Yitzhak Gadre, et al. Objaverse-xl: A universe of 10m+ 3d objects. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [5]

    Unifying gans and score-based diffusion as generative particle models

    Jean-Yves Franceschi, Mike Gartrell, Ludovic Dos Santos, Thibaut Issenhuth, Emmanuel de B ´ezenac, Micka ¨el Chen, and Alain Rakotomamonjy. Unifying gans and score-based diffusion as generative particle models. In NeurIPS, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 3

    2014

  7. [7]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 2, 4

    2020

  8. [8]

    Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d

    Yicong Hong, Kai Zhang, Jiuxiang Gu, Sai Bi, Yang Zhou, Difan Liu, Feng Liu, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Trung Bui, and Hao Tan. Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04400, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Shap-e: Generat- ing conditional 3d implicit functions

    Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. Shap-e: Generat- ing conditional 3d implicit functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models. In NeurIPS, 2022. 4

    2022

  3. [11]

    Variational diffusion models

    Diederik Kingma, Tim Salimans, Ben Poole, and Jonathan Ho. Variational diffusion models. In NeurIPS, 2021. 4

    2021

  4. [12]

    Patch conv: Patch convolution to avoid large gpu memory usage

    MIT HAN Lab. Patch conv: Patch convolution to avoid large gpu memory usage. https://hanlab.mit.edu/ blog/patch-conv, 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-14. 5

    2024

  5. [13]

    Black Forest Labs. Flux. https://github.com/ black- forest- labs/flux, 2024. Accessed: 2024- 11-14. 6

    2024

  6. [14]

    Improving the training of rectified flows

    Sangyun Lee, Zinan Lin, and Giulia Fanti. Improving the training of rectified flows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20320,

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Naturalbench: Evalu- ating vision-language models on natural adversarial samples

    Baiqi Li, Zhiqiu Lin, Wenxuan Peng, Jean de Dieu Nyandwi, Daniel Jiang, Zixian Ma, Simran Khanuja, Ranjay Krishna, Graham Neubig, and Deva Ramanan. Naturalbench: Evalu- ating vision-language models on natural adversarial samples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14669, 2024. 6

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Instant3d: Fast text-to-3d with sparse-view generation and large reconstruction model

    Jiahao Li, Hao Tan, Kai Zhang, Zexiang Xu, Fujun Luan, Yinghao Xu, Yicong Hong, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Greg Shakhnarovich, and Sai Bi. Instant3d: Fast text-to-3d with sparse-view generation and large reconstruction model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06214, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming-Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Flow matching for generative mod- eling

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximil- ian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative mod- eling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    One-2-3-45: Any single image to 3d mesh in 45 seconds without per-shape optimiza- tion

    Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Haian Jin, Linghao Chen, Mukund Varma T, Zexiang Xu, and Hao Su. One-2-3-45: Any single image to 3d mesh in 45 seconds without per-shape optimiza- tion. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024. 3

    2024

  12. [20]

    Zero-1-to- 3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tok- makov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl V ondrick. Zero-1-to- 3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9298–9309, 2023. 3

    2023

  13. [21]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Instaflow: One step is enough for high-quality diffusion- based text-to-image generation

    Xingchao Liu, Xiwen Zhang, Jianzhu Ma, Jian Peng, et al. Instaflow: One step is enough for high-quality diffusion- based text-to-image generation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  15. [23]

    Syncdreamer: Gen- erating multiview-consistent images from a single-view im- age

    Yuan Liu, Cheng Lin, Zijiao Zeng, Xiaoxiao Long, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Syncdreamer: Gen- erating multiview-consistent images from a single-view im- age. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03453, 2023. 2, 3 9

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Scalable 3d captioning with pretrained models

    Tiange Luo, Chris Rockwell, Honglak Lee, and Justin John- son. Scalable 3d captioning with pretrained models. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  17. [25]

    Diff-instruct: A universal approach for transferring knowledge from pre-trained diffu- sion models

    Weijian Luo, Tianyang Hu, Shifeng Zhang, Jiacheng Sun, Zhenguo Li, and Zhihua Zhang. Diff-instruct: A universal approach for transferring knowledge from pre-trained diffu- sion models. In NeurIPS, 2023. 3

    2023

  18. [26]

    On distillation of guided diffusion models

    Chenlin Meng, Robin Rombach, Ruiqi Gao, Diederik Kingma, Stefano Ermon, Jonathan Ho, and Tim Salimans. On distillation of guided diffusion models. In CVPR, 2023. 3

    2023

  19. [27]

    AutoSDF: Shape priors for 3d completion, reconstruction and generation

    Paritosh Mittal, Yen-Chi Cheng, Maneesh Singh, and Shub- ham Tulsiani. AutoSDF: Shape priors for 3d completion, reconstruction and generation. In CVPR, 2022. 2

    2022

  20. [28]

    Swiftbrush: One-step text-to-image diffusion model with variational score distilla- tion

    Thuan Hoang Nguyen and Anh Tran. Swiftbrush: One-step text-to-image diffusion model with variational score distilla- tion. In CVPR, 2024. 3

    2024

  21. [29]

    Point-e: A system for generat- ing 3d point clouds from complex prompts

    Alex Nichol, Heewoo Jun, Prafulla Dhariwal, Pamela Mishkin, and Mark Chen. Point-e: A system for generat- ing 3d point clouds from complex prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751, 2022. 2, 3

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4195–4205,

  23. [31]

    Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988, 2022. 2, 6, 7

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Zero-shot text-to-image generation

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea V oss, Alec Radford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Zero-shot text-to-image generation. In International confer- ence on machine learning, pages 8821–8831. Pmlr, 2021. 2

    2021

  26. [34]

    Texture: Text-guided texturing of 3d shapes

    Elad Richardson, Gal Metzer, Yuval Alaluf, Raja Giryes, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Texture: Text-guided texturing of 3d shapes. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 conference proceedings, pages 1–11, 2023. 3

    2023

  27. [35]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2

    2022

  28. [36]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models

    Tim Salimans and Jonathan Ho. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512, 2022. 2, 3, 4

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Fast high- resolution image synthesis with latent adversarial diffusion distillation

    Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, Tim Dockhorn, Andreas Blattmann, Patrick Esser, and Robin Rombach. Fast high- resolution image synthesis with latent adversarial diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12015, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view dif- fusion base model

    Ruoxi Shi, Hansheng Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Linghao Chen, Chong Zeng, and Hao Su. Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view dif- fusion base model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15110, 2023. 2

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d gen- eration

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d gen- eration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16512, 2023. 2, 3, 4

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Meshgpt: Generating triangle meshes with decoder-only transformers

    Yawar Siddiqui, Antonio Alliegro, Alexey Artemov, Ta- tiana Tommasi, Daniele Sirigatti, Vladislav Rosov, Angela Dai, and Matthias Nießner. Meshgpt: Generating triangle meshes with decoder-only transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patte...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Denois- ing diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denois- ing diffusion implicit models. In ICLR, 2021. 4

    2021

  35. [43]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 2, 4

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. In ICML, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  37. [45]

    Viewset diffusion:(0-) image-conditioned 3d gener- ative models from 2d data

    Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Viewset diffusion:(0-) image-conditioned 3d gener- ative models from 2d data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 8863– 8873, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  38. [46]

    Lgm: Large multi-view gaussian model for high-resolution 3d content creation

    Jiaxiang Tang, Zhaoxi Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Tengfei Wang, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu. Lgm: Large multi-view gaussian model for high-resolution 3d content creation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1–18. Springer, 2025. 6, 7, 12

    2025

  39. [47]

    Diffusion with forward models: Solv- ing stochastic inverse problems without direct supervision

    Ayush Tewari, Tianwei Yin, George Cazenavette, Semon Rezchikov, Josh Tenenbaum, Fr ´edo Durand, Bill Freeman, and Vincent Sitzmann. Diffusion with forward models: Solv- ing stochastic inverse problems without direct supervision. Advances in Neural Information Processing System...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Triposr: Fast 3d object reconstruction from a single image

    Dmitry Tochilkin, David Pankratz, Zexiang Liu, Zixuan Huang, Adam Letts, Yangguang Li, Ding Liang, Christian Laforte, Varun Jampani, and Yan-Pei Cao. Triposr: Fast 3d object reconstruction from a single image. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02151, 2024. 6, 12

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A connection between score matching and denoising autoencoders

    Pascal Vincent. A connection between score matching and denoising autoencoders. Neural computation, 23(7):1661– 1674, 2011. 2

    2011

  42. [50]

    SV3D: Novel multi-view synthesis and 3D generation from a single image using la- tent video diffusion

    Vikram V oleti, Chun-Han Yao, Mark Boss, Adam Letts, David Pankratz, Dmitrii Tochilkin, Christian Laforte, Robin Rombach, and Varun Jampani. SV3D: Novel multi-view synthesis and 3D generation from a single image using la- tent video diffusion. In European Conference on Compute...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Geco: Generative image-to-3d within a second

    Chen Wang, Jiatao Gu, Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan Liu, and Lingjie Liu. Geco: Generative image-to-3d within a second. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20327, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Pf-lrm: Pose-free large reconstruction model for joint pose and shape prediction

    Peng Wang, Hao Tan, Sai Bi, Yinghao Xu, Fujun Luan, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Wenping Wang, Zexiang Xu, and Kai Zhang. Pf-lrm: Pose-free large reconstruction model for joint pose and shape prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12024, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Rodin: A generative model for sculpting 3d digital avatars using diffusion

    Tengfei Wang, Bo Zhang, Ting Zhang, Shuyang Gu, Jianmin Bao, Tadas Baltrusaitis, Jingjing Shen, Dong Chen, Fang Wen, Qifeng Chen, et al. Rodin: A generative model for sculpting 3d digital avatars using diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distilla- tion

    Zhengyi Wang, Cheng Lu, Yikai Wang, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distilla- tion. In NeurIPS, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  47. [55]

    Meshlrm: Large reconstruction model for high- quality mesh

    Xinyue Wei, Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, Fujun Luan, Valentin Deschaintre, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Hao Su, and Zex- iang Xu. Meshlrm: Large reconstruction model for high- quality mesh. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12385, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Direct3d: Scalable image-to-3d generation via 3d latent diffusion transformer

    Shuang Wu, Youtian Lin, Feihu Zhang, Yifei Zeng, Jingxi Xu, Philip Torr, Xun Cao, and Yao Yao. Direct3d: Scalable image-to-3d generation via 3d latent diffusion transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14832, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Dmv3d: Denoising multi-view diffu- sion using 3d large reconstruction model

    Yinghao Xu, Hao Tan, Fujun Luan, Sai Bi, Peng Wang, Ji- ahao Li, Zifan Shi, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Gordon Wetzstein, Zexiang Xu, et al. Dmv3d: Denoising multi-view diffu- sion using 3d large reconstruction model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09217, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Ufogen: You forward once large scale text-to-image genera- tion via diffusion gans

    Yanwu Xu, Yang Zhao, Zhisheng Xiao, and Tingbo Hou. Ufogen: You forward once large scale text-to-image genera- tion via diffusion gans. In CVPR, 2024. 3

    2024

  51. [59]

    Im- proved distribution matching distillation for fast image syn- thesis

    Tianwei Yin, Micha ¨el Gharbi, Taesung Park, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, Fredo Durand, and William T Freeman. Im- proved distribution matching distillation for fast image syn- thesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14867, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 5

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation

    Tianwei Yin, Micha ¨el Gharbi, Richard Zhang, Eli Shecht- man, Fredo Durand, William T Freeman, and Taesung Park. One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 6613–6623...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Gs-lrm: Large recon- struction model for 3d gaussian splatting

    Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, Yuanbo Xiangli, Nanxuan Zhao, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Zexiang Xu. Gs-lrm: Large recon- struction model for 3d gaussian splatting. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 1–19. Springer, 2025. 2, 3, 5, 8, 12

    2025

  54. [62]

    Clay: A controllable large-scale generative model for creat- ing high-quality 3d assets

    Longwen Zhang, Ziyu Wang, Qixuan Zhang, Qiwei Qiu, Anqi Pang, Haoran Jiang, Wei Yang, Lan Xu, and Jingyi Yu. Clay: A controllable large-scale generative model for creat- ing high-quality 3d assets. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 43(4):1–20, 2024. 2, 3 11 Turbo3D: Ultra-fa...

    2024

  55. [63]

    We fine-tune the model on the Objaverse dataset [3]

    Details of Multi-step Multi-view Generation Model We directly fine-tune an internal DiT [30] based text-to- image model into a text-to-multiview model. We fine-tune the model on the Objaverse dataset [3]. For the generation task, we render the dataset at a fixed elevation (20 ...

  56. [64]

    For a fair com- parison, we also perform experiments on 512 resolution

    Experiments on 512 resolution Some of the previous methods (Instant3D and SV3D) gen- erate results with a higher resolution of 512. For a fair com- parison, we also perform experiments on 512 resolution. Tab. 4 presents the quantitative comparisons with several state-of-the-ar...

  57. [65]

    Details of User Study The interface example is shown in Fig. 7. For each ques- tion, we show two rendered videos from two different meth- ods and ask the user to pick their preferred one. The two methods are randomly chosen from the total 4 methods: LGM [46], Instant3D [16], o...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.