Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

DiGA3D: Coarse-to-Fine Diffusional Propagation of Geometry and Appearance for Versatile 3D Inpainting

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DiGA3D claims one text-guided pipeline can remove, re-texture, or replace objects in a 3D scene while keeping appearance and geometry consistent across all views.

desk verdict Plausible integration of known components for unified 3D inpainting, but the geometry claim is under-supported and the CLIP dir numbers are partly self-aligned. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00429 v1 pith:KCXJ7HJX submitted 2025-07-01 cs.CV

Jingyi Pan , Dan Xu , Qiong Luo This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DinpaintingGaussianSplattingdiffusionmodelsmulti-viewconsistencyscoredistillationsamplingattentionfeaturepropagationobjectremovaltext-guidedediting
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

DiGA3D proposes a single text-guided pipeline for three 3D inpainting tasks—object removal, re-texturing, and replacement—built on 3D Gaussian Splatting. The paper argues that multi-view consistency can be achieved by first propagating 2D diffusion attention features from a few reference views to all other views, then refining the scene with a score distillation loss conditioned on warped texture and depth maps. This coarse-to-fine combination is meant to solve two failure modes of earlier methods: appearance drift for views far from a single reference, and geometry artifacts when the inpainted region changes shape substantially. A reader should care because the target is a practical unified editing tool for 3D scenes rather than a separate method for each task.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. Attention Feature Propagation (AFP) uses DDIM-inverted latents from the chosen reference views, then replaces part of each current view's self-attention output with cross-attention against the reference keys and values, so all views share appearance information through the diffusion U-Net. Texture-Geometry SDS (TG-SDS) uses depth-image-based rendering to warp each reference view's image and monocular depth into a target view within the same cluster, converts the warps into Canny texture maps and estimated depth maps, feeds them into ControlNet as conditions, and applies the SDS gradient to the rendered masked pixels. A monocular depth loss with least-squares scale-and-shift alignment anchors geometry during the coarse stage.

What would settle it

Run DiGA3D's object replacement on a scene where monocular depth is known to disagree across nearby views (for example, textureless or repetitive regions), with and without the TG-SDS loss, and measure the edited region against ground-truth geometry such as a laser scan or multi-view-stereo depth, using Chamfer distance or depth error. If the TG-SDS variant does not reduce geometric error, the claimed geometry regularization is falsified; a simpler color-only check on the paper's own numbers would not settle it, since the reported masked-PSNR difference is only 0.05.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that multi-view 3D inpainting can be decomposed into an appearance-propagation stage and a geometry/texture-regularization stage without retraining the underlying 2D diffusion models. In the coarse stage, K-means clustering on camera centers selects several reference views; DDIM inversion turns each rendered view into a deterministic latent; and an Attention Feature Propagation module mixes reference-view self-attention features into every other view's attention while injecting a CLIP image embedding into the U-Net residual blocks. In the fine stage, a Texture-Geometry SDS loss feeds warped Canny texture maps and monocular depth maps into a multi-condition ControlNet and backpropagates gradients only on masked pixels. The paper reports that this yields improved PSNR and masked PSNR on the SPIn-NeRF object-removal benchmark, higher CLIP directional similarity for re-texturing and replacement, and cleaner point clouds in ablations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that monocular depth maps, after least-squares scale-and-shift alignment, agree well enough across views that DIBR warping produces trustworthy geometry conditions; if the depth estimator is inconsistent across views, the TG-SDS loss would reinforce the wrong shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, one pipeline can serve object removal, re-texturing, and replacement, so users no longer need task-specific 3D inpainting systems.
  • Appearance consistency across views can be obtained without a joint 3D latent: sharing attention features during 2D inpainting is enough for a coarse consistent result.
  • Explicit warped texture and depth conditions are sufficient to regularize 3D geometry, reducing multi-facet artifacts even when monocular depth is only known up to scale and shift.
  • The reported gain in masked PSNR (17.22 versus 15.84 for the closest removal baseline) indicates the main improvement is inside the inpainted region, not just the unchanged background.
  • Training-free pretrained diffusion models can power versatile 3D inpainting; no fine-tuning of the 2D inpainter is required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension would replace monocular depth with metric depth from multi-view stereo or LiDAR; if TG-SDS's geometry gain is real, metric depth should enlarge it, and if the gain is mostly an artifact of scale/shift alignment, it should shrink.
  • The AFP attention-sharing schedule could transfer to video inpainting or novel-view synthesis, where temporal or cross-view consistency is the same bottleneck.
  • Because the paper's ablation shows TG-SDS adds only 0.05 PSNR on removal while the point-cloud improvement is qualitative, a geometric metric such as Chamfer distance against a scanned mesh would settle the claimed geometry gain.
  • The K-means reference selection is motivated by warping stability in the fine stage, which suggests consistency may degrade for sparse camera trajectories or large clusters; stress-testing those regimes would reveal the method's actual coverage limits.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DiGA3D, a coarse-to-fine text-guided 3D inpainting pipeline built on 3D Gaussian Splatting. In the coarse stage, it selects multiple reference views via K-means clustering over camera centers, applies DDIM inversion to obtain deterministic latents, and uses an Attention Feature Propagation (AFP) module to transfer attention features from reference views to other views for multi-view appearance consistency. In the fine stage, it introduces a Texture-Geometry Score Distillation Sampling (TG-SDS) loss that conditions a ControlNet on DIBR-warped texture and depth maps from reference views, aiming to improve geometric consistency. The method is evaluated on object removal, re-texturing, and replacement against several baselines, with quantitative tables and qualitative comparisons.

Significance. If the claims are validated, DiGA3D would be a useful unified framework for versatile 3D inpainting, combining a coherent coarse-to-fine design with explicit texture and geometry conditioning. The paper includes extensive qualitative comparisons, ablations of key components, a user study for re-texturing, and additional no-reference metrics, which are valuable. The main contributions, AFP and TG-SDS, are clearly described and the overall idea is plausible. However, the empirical support for the central geometric-consistency claim is currently weak: the quantitative ablation of TG-SDS is small, no error bars are reported, and the evaluation of re-texturing/replacement relies on a metric that is aligned with the text-guided objective being optimized. The framework is worth further development, but the current evidence does not fully support the strength of the abstract's claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4, Table 3, Fig. 9] The central claim that TG-SDS improves geometric consistency is not quantitatively supported. Table 3 shows that removing TG-SDS changes PSNR from 20.71 to 20.66 (+0.05), SSIM from 0.58 to 0.57, and LPIPS from 0.28 to 0.29, with no error bars or significance test. The qualitative point-cloud comparison in Fig. 9 is suggestive, but the paper needs a quantitative geometry metric (e.g., depth error against multi-view stereo, Chamfer distance to a reconstructed surface, or multi-view depth consistency) to substantiate the 'geometrically consistent' claim. Without such a metric, the improvement could be driven by appearance optimization rather than geometry.
  2. [§3.4, Eq. (5), Eq. (8)] The geometry supervision is circular with respect to the monocular depth estimator. The same estimator [31] produces the depth maps used in the coarse-stage depth loss (Eq. 8, with only scale/shift alignment) and the warped depth maps D'_i that condition ControlNet in TG-SDS (Eq. 5). If the monocular estimates have systematic bias or cross-view inconsistency, the warped conditions will reinforce that error. The paper does not validate warping accuracy (e.g., reprojection error, consistency of D'_i with rendered depth, or against metric ground truth). I request a direct quantitative check of DIBR warping quality and an ablation using multi-view-consistent depth if available.
  3. [§4.1, Table 2] The CLIP directional similarity metric used for re-texturing and replacement is aligned with the text-guided diffusion objective that DiGA3D optimizes, so the large margins in Table 2 (0.1751 vs 0.0742/0.0702) may partly measure objective alignment rather than perceptual quality. The table reports no per-scene variance or error bars, and the user study covers only re-texturing (18 participants, 108 votes). Please add per-scene CLIPdir scores, background-preservation metrics, multi-view consistency metrics, and a user study for replacement, or soften the claim that the method 'aligns more closely with text prompts'.
  4. [§4.4, Tables 1-4] All quantitative tables report single-run means without error bars or significance tests. The differences against the strongest baseline in Table 1 are small (PSNR 20.71 vs 20.49; LPIPS tie; masked LPIPS 0.56 vs 0.54, i.e., worse), and Table 4 evaluates K on a single scene with near-identical PSNR values (19.87 vs 19.94). Reporting multiple seeds or bootstrapped confidence intervals is necessary to establish that the observed improvements are not noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1 Implementation Details] Learning rates, number of optimization iterations, loss weights λrgb, λdepth, λTG-SDS, and timestep ranges are not given; without these the experiments are difficult to reproduce.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (4)] The index i is reused for the current view and for the summation over reference views; using j for the sum would improve clarity.
  3. [§3.4] The masking of the TG-SDS gradient ('only backpropagate the gradient for the masked pixels') is stated only textually; please specify how the mask is applied in latent space and whether the mask is eroded or dilated.
  4. [Figures 5-7] The compared regions are small and the prompts differ across methods; zoomed crops of the edited region would help the reader assess the claimed consistency.
  5. [§2, §4] The placeholder 'HERE' on the project page should be replaced, and the SPIn-NeRF dataset description should clarify how the 60/40 train/test split is used for re-texturing and replacement tasks, which lack ground truth.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coarse-to-fine construction is self-contained, and the CLIP-based re-texturing scores are a validation-alignment concern rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

DiGA3D's pipeline is self-contained as a construction: the coarse stage derives multi-view inpainted images via DDIM inversion and AFP and fits the 3D Gaussians with photometric and depth losses (Eqs. 7-8); the fine stage adds TG-SDS with ControlNet conditioned on warped texture/depth maps (Eqs. 5-6). No method parameter is defined in terms of the headline metrics, and the object-removal evaluation (PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS, Table 1) is against ground-truth test views from SPIn-NeRF, which are independent of the training signal. The re-texturing/replacement numbers use CLIP directional similarity (Table 2); while TG-SDS also conditions on text prompts, the SDS gradient is computed from a diffusion-model noise prediction (Eq. 6), not from CLIP, so the metric is not identical to the objective by construction. The monocular-depth supervision used both in L_depth and in the warped depth conditions is a consistency limitation rather than a circular reduction, and the only self-cited work (GScream) appears as a baseline for comparison, not as a load-bearing premise. No step exhibits the kind of definitional or fitted-input circularity that would reduce a claimed result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is an engineering pipeline; it introduces no invented entities. It relies on standard components (GPU rendering, pretrained diffusion and depth models) and on a few domain assumptions about multi-view consistency of those components. The free parameters are hyperparameters, most tuned on one scene.

free parameters (7)
  • K (number of reference-view clusters) = 3
    Chosen by balancing performance vs memory on Scene 1 of SPIn-NeRF (Tab. 4), then used for all datasets.
  • lambda_a (AFP mixing weight) = 0.6
    Set in appendix (Sec. 6.1) for attention feature propagation Eq. 4.
  • lambda (Lrgb weighting) = 0.2
    Empirically set in Eq. 7 for all experiments.
  • guidance scale (ControlNet) = 7.5
    Set in appendix for TG-SDS generation.
  • condition scale for depth = 1.0
    Set in appendix for ControlNet depth condition.
  • condition scale for texture = 0.8
    Set in appendix for ControlNet Canny condition.
  • loss weights lambda_rgb, lambda_depth, lambda_TG-SDS
    Coefficients in Eq. 9 are not specified in the paper, implying manual tuning.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 2D inpainter (PowerPaint) can generate coherent content for the masked regions in each view when conditioned on text and latents.
    Used in coarse stage; if the 2D inpainter fails, AFP cannot fix it.
  • domain assumption Monocular depth maps from the DPT estimator, after least-squares scale/shift alignment, are consistent enough across views to be used as warping and as ControlNet conditions.
    Relied on by Eq. 5 warping and TG-SDS Eq. 6; errors would corrupt geometry propagation.
  • domain assumption COLMAP camera poses are sufficiently accurate for multi-view warping.
    Used for cluster selection and DIBR warping; pose error directly affects warp quality.
  • ad hoc to paper DDIM inversion with the inpainting U-Net yields deterministic latents that preserve the unmasked content, enabling attention feature transfer.
    This property is assumed and not proven for the specific inpainting model; it is central to the AFP mechanism.
  • domain assumption ControlNet with Canny and depth conditions faithfully follows the conditions when used in SDS loss.
    Assumed when computing Eq. 6; if ControlNet ignores conditions, TG-SDS would not propagate texture/geometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DiGA3D: Coarse-to-Fine Diffusional Propagation of Geometry and Appearance for Versatile 3D Inpainting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KCXJ7HJX

@misc{pith2026250700429,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DiGA3D: Coarse-to-Fine Diffusional Propagation of Geometry and Appearance for Versatile 3D Inpainting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KCXJ7HJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00429}
}
read the original abstract

Developing a unified pipeline that enables users to remove, re-texture, or replace objects in a versatile manner is crucial for text-guided 3D inpainting. However, there are still challenges in performing multiple 3D inpainting tasks within a unified framework: 1) Single reference inpainting methods lack robustness when dealing with views that are far from the reference view. 2) Appearance inconsistency arises when independently inpainting multi-view images with 2D diffusion priors; 3) Geometry inconsistency limits performance when there are significant geometric changes in the inpainting regions. To tackle these challenges, we introduce DiGA3D, a novel and versatile 3D inpainting pipeline that leverages diffusion models to propagate consistent appearance and geometry in a coarse-to-fine manner. First, DiGA3D develops a robust strategy for selecting multiple reference views to reduce errors during propagation. Next, DiGA3D designs an Attention Feature Propagation (AFP) mechanism that propagates attention features from the selected reference views to other views via diffusion models to maintain appearance consistency. Furthermore, DiGA3D introduces a Texture-Geometry Score Distillation Sampling (TG-SDS) loss to further improve the geometric consistency of inpainted 3D scenes. Extensive experiments on multiple 3D inpainting tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. The project page is available at https://rorisis.github.io/DiGA3D/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00429 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DiGA3D is a versatile 3D inpainting framework guided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our proposed framework. Before performing 3D inpainting, we first calculate the camera pose using COLMAP [33] and extract masks from mask prompts Tm. We then apply k-means clustering to group the views based on their camera centers and select the views closest to the cluster centers as the reference views. In the coarse stage, we employ DDIM Inversion [34] to generate deterministic latents, which are then used to pr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The illustration of the proposed Attention Feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the multi-view consistent image inpainting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results of the object removal task. For each scene, we present two novel views to compare the rendering quality and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results of the object re-texturing task. For each scene, we present two novel views to compare the rendering quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results of the object replacement task. For each scene, we present two novel views to compare the rendering quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The visualization of ablation study for key components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ablations on using different 2D inpainters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Additional ablation study on the TG-SDS loss. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A failure case of the object replacement task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Additional object removal results. Original view & mask Novel View “Table” -> “Glass Table” “Bear Statue” -> “Real Brown Bear” “Red Flower” -> “Yellow Flower” “Fortress” -> “Origami Fortress” “Box” -> “Brown Wooden Box” “Box” -> “Silver Box” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Additional object re-texturing results. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Additional object replacement results. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction

    Ren ´e Ranftl, Alexey Bochkovskiy, and Vladlen Koltun. Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 12179–12188, 2021. 3, 5

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5470–5479, 2022. 5, 7, 9

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    ReplaceAnything3D:Text-Guided 3D Scene Editing with Compositional Neural Radiance Fields

    Edward Bartrum, Thu Nguyen-Phuoc, Chris Xie, Zhengqin Li, Numair Khan, Armen Avetisyan, Douglas Lanman, and Lei Xiao. Replaceanything3d: Text-guided 3d scene edit- ing with compositional neural radiance fields. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17895, 2024. 1

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    A computational approach to edge detection

    John Canny. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence, (6):679–698, 1986. 5

    work page 1986

  5. [4]

    Leftrefill: Filling right canvas based on left refer- ence through generalized text-to-image diffusion model

    Chenjie Cao, Yunuo Cai, Qiaole Dong, Yikai Wang, and Yanwei Fu. Leftrefill: Filling right canvas based on left refer- ence through generalized text-to-image diffusion model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 7705–7715, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Mvinpainter: Learning multi-view consis- tent inpainting to bridge 2d and 3d editing

    Chenjie Cao, Chaohui Yu, Yanwei Fu, Fan Wang, and Xi- angyang Xue. Mvinpainter: Learning multi-view consis- tent inpainting to bridge 2d and 3d editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08000, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv ´e J´egou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerg- ing properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on com- puter vision, pages 9650–9660, 2021. 2

    2021

  8. [7]

    Mvip- nerf: Multi-view 3d inpainting on nerf scenes via diffu- sion prior

    Honghua Chen, Chen Change Loy, and Xingang Pan. Mvip- nerf: Multi-view 3d inpainting on nerf scenes via diffu- sion prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5344– 5353, 2024. 2, 6

    work page 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Gaussianeditor: Swift and control- lable 3d editing with gaussian splatting

    Yiwen Chen, Zilong Chen, Chi Zhang, Feng Wang, Xi- aofeng Yang, Yikai Wang, Zhongang Cai, Lei Yang, Huaping Liu, and Guosheng Lin. Gaussianeditor: Swift and control- lable 3d editing with gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patt...

    2024

  2. [9]

    Texture synthesis by non-parametric sampling

    Alexei A Efros and Thomas K Leung. Texture synthesis by non-parametric sampling. In Proceedings of the seventh IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 1033–1038. IEEE, 1999. 2

    1999

  3. [10]

    Depth-image-based rendering (dibr), com- pression, and transmission for a new approach on 3d-tv

    Christoph Fehn. Depth-image-based rendering (dibr), com- pression, and transmission for a new approach on 3d-tv. In Stereoscopic displays and virtual reality systems XI , pages 93–104. SPIE, 2004. 4

    2004

  4. [11]

    Flow-edge guided video completion

    Chen Gao, Ayush Saraf, Jia-Bin Huang, and Johannes Kopf. Flow-edge guided video completion. In Computer Vision– ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, Au- gust 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XII 16, pages 713–729. Springer, 2020. 2

    2020

  5. [12]

    Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions

    Ayaan Haque, Matthew Tancik, Alexei A Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 19740–19750, 2023. 6, 9, 10

    2023

  6. [13]

    Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer

    Junjie Ke, Qifei Wang, Yilin Wang, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 5148–5157, 2021. 9

    2021

  7. [14]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1,

  8. [15]

    Segment any- thing

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer White- head, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment any- thing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 4015–4026, 202...

    2023

  9. [16]

    Towards an end-to-end framework for flow-guided video inpainting

    Zhen Li, Cheng-Ze Lu, Jianhua Qin, Chun-Le Guo, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Towards an end-to-end framework for flow-guided video inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 17562–17571, 2022. 2

    2022

  10. [17]

    Nerf-in: Free-form nerf inpainting with rgb-d priors

    Hao-Kang Liu, I Shen, Bing-Yu Chen, et al. Nerf-in: Free-form nerf inpainting with rgb-d priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04901, 2022. 1, 2

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control

    Shaoteng Liu, Yuechen Zhang, Wenbo Li, Zhe Lin, and Jiaya Jia. Video-p2p: Video editing with cross-attention control. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8599–8608, 2024. 4

    2024

  12. [19]

    Infusion: Inpainting 3d gaussians via learn- ing depth completion from diffusion prior

    Zhiheng Liu, Hao Ouyang, Qiuyu Wang, Ka Leong Cheng, Jie Xiao, Kai Zhu, Nan Xue, Yu Liu, Yujun Shen, and Yang Cao. Infusion: Inpainting 3d gaussians via learn- ing depth completion from diffusion prior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11613, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Least squares quantization in pcm

    Stuart Lloyd. Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE trans- actions on information theory, 28(2):129–137, 1982. 3

    1982

  14. [21]

    Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering

    Tao Lu, Mulin Yu, Linning Xu, Yuanbo Xiangli, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20654–20664, 2024. 6

    2024

  15. [22]

    View-consistent object re- moval in radiance fields

    Yiren Lu, Jing Ma, and Yu Yin. View-consistent object re- moval in radiance fields. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 3597–3606,

  16. [23]

    Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar. Local light field fusion: Practical view syn- thesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG), 2019. 5, 8, 9

    2019

  17. [24]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  18. [25]

    Reference-guided control- lable inpainting of neural radiance fields

    Ashkan Mirzaei, Tristan Aumentado-Armstrong, Marcus A Brubaker, Jonathan Kelly, Alex Levinshtein, Konstantinos G Derpanis, and Igor Gilitschenski. Reference-guided control- lable inpainting of neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on c...

    2023

  19. [26]

    Spin-nerf: Multiview segmentation and perceptual inpainting with neural radiance fields

    Ashkan Mirzaei, Tristan Aumentado-Armstrong, Konstanti- nos G Derpanis, Jonathan Kelly, Marcus A Brubaker, Igor Gilitschenski, and Alex Levinshtein. Spin-nerf: Multiview segmentation and perceptual inpainting with neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conferen...

  20. [27]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Al- ban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. 2017. 6

    2017

  21. [28]

    Barron, and Ben Milden- hall

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2023. 3

    2023

  22. [29]

    Langsplat: 3d language gaussian splatting

    Minghan Qin, Wanhua Li, Jiawei Zhou, Haoqian Wang, and Hanspeter Pfister. Langsplat: 3d language gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20051–20060, 2024. 2

    2024

  23. [30]

    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

  24. [32]

    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, 4, 9

    2022

  25. [33]

    Structure- from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure- from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4104–4113, 2016. 3, 4

    2016

  26. [34]

    Denois- ing diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denois- ing diffusion implicit models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. 3

    2021

  27. [35]

    Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions

    Roman Suvorov, Elizaveta Logacheva, Anton Mashikhin, Anastasia Remizova, Arsenii Ashukha, Aleksei Silvestrov, Naejin Kong, Harshith Goka, Kiwoong Park, and Victor Lempitsky. Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Innerf360: Text-guided 3d-consistent object in- painting on 360-degree neural radiance fields

    Dongqing Wang, Tong Zhang, Alaa Abboud, and Sabine S¨usstrunk. Innerf360: Text-guided 3d-consistent object in- painting on 360-degree neural radiance fields. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12677–12686, 2024. 1

    2024

  29. [37]

    Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction

    Peng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Yuan Liu, Christian Theobalt, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689, 2021. 1, 2

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Learning 3d geometry and feature consistent gaussian splat- ting for object removal

    Yuxin Wang, Qianyi Wu, Guofeng Zhang, and Dan Xu. Learning 3d geometry and feature consistent gaussian splat- ting for object removal. In European Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 1–17. Springer, 2024. 1, 2, 6

    2024

  31. [39]

    Nerfiller: Completing scenes via generative 3d inpainting

    Ethan Weber, Aleksander Holynski, Varun Jampani, Saurabh Saxena, Noah Snavely, Abhishek Kar, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Nerfiller: Completing scenes via generative 3d inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20731– 20741...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Gaussctrl: Multi-view consistent text-driven 3d gaussian splatting edit- ing

    Jing Wu, Jia-Wang Bian, Xinghui Li, Guangrun Wang, Ian Reid, Philip Torr, and Victor Adrian Prisacariu. Gaussctrl: Multi-view consistent text-driven 3d gaussian splatting edit- ing. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 55–

  33. [41]

    Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation

    Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yixiao Ge, Xintao Wang, Stan Weixian Lei, Yuchao Gu, Yufei Shi, Wynne Hsu, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Mike Zheng Shou. Tune-a-video: One-shot tuning of image diffusion models for text-to-video generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Self-supervised video object segmentation by motion grouping

    Charig Yang, Hala Lamdouar, Erika Lu, Andrew Zisserman, and Weidi Xie. Self-supervised video object segmentation by motion grouping. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7177–7188,

  35. [43]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3836–3847, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8

    2023

  36. [44]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 1

    2018

  37. [45]

    Propainter: Improving propagation and transformer for video inpainting

    Shangchen Zhou, Chongyi Li, Kelvin CK Chan, and Chen Change Loy. Propainter: Improving propagation and transformer for video inpainting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 10477–10486, 2023. 2

    2023

  38. [46]

    Feature 3dgs: Supercharging 3d gaussian splatting to enable distilled feature fields

    Shijie Zhou, Haoran Chang, Sicheng Jiang, Zhiwen Fan, Ze- hao Zhu, Dejia Xu, Pradyumna Chari, Suya You, Zhangyang Wang, and Achuta Kadambi. Feature 3dgs: Supercharging 3d gaussian splatting to enable distilled feature fields. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Compu...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Transfill: Reference-guided image inpainting by merging multiple color and spatial transformations

    Yuqian Zhou, Connelly Barnes, Eli Shechtman, and Sohrab Amirghodsi. Transfill: Reference-guided image inpainting by merging multiple color and spatial transformations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 2266–2276, 2021. 2

    2021

  40. [48]

    A task is worth one word: Learning with task prompts for high-quality versatile image inpainting

    Junhao Zhuang, Yanhong Zeng, Wenran Liu, Chun Yuan, and Kai Chen. A task is worth one word: Learning with task prompts for high-quality versatile image inpainting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03594, 2023. 2, 4, 6, 8, 9

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ewa volume splatting

    Matthias Zwicker, Hanspeter Pfister, Jeroen Van Baar, and Markus Gross. Ewa volume splatting. In Proceedings Visu- alization, 2001. VIS’01., pages 29–538. IEEE, 2001. 2 14

    2001

  42. [71]

    Springer, 2024. 6, 10

    2024

  43. [2023]

    1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.