Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 138 references

Articulate3D claims that a training-free, two-step pipeline can repose a rigged 3D mesh from a text prompt while preserving its identity, by rewiring a multi-view diffusion model's self-attention to generate posed target images and then ali

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A zero-shot pipeline that reposes 3D meshes by generating text-conditioned target images with rewired multi-view attention and aligning mesh keypoints to them.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful training-free text-to-pose pipeline for already-rigged meshes, with a genuinely new attention-rewiring trick; the unstated rig requirement and thin identity evaluation make it conditional rather than a slam dunk. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.19244 v1 pith:OXUMZ7CE submitted 2025-08-26 cs.CV

Articulate3D: Zero-Shot Text-Driven 3D Object Posing

Oishi Deb , Anjun Hu , Ashkan Khakzar , Philip Torr , Christian Rupprecht This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords text-driven 3D posingarticulated mesheszero-shot articulationself-attention rewiringmulti-view diffusionkeypoint alignmenttraining-freepose transfer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Articulate3D aims to let a plain text command change the pose of an existing 3D character mesh — a tiger lifting its front legs, a phoenix gliding — with no training and no loss of the object's visual identity. The authors find that the usual route, score distillation from a 2D diffusion model, produces gradients too noisy to drive bone rotations, so they split the problem: first, a rewired multi-view image generator creates target views showing the requested pose while keeping the source structure; second, keypoints detected on the mesh render and on those target views are aligned by optimizing bone rotations. The paper reports that this combination beats the SDS, MVEdit, and GRM-adapter baselines on CLIP-based metrics and is preferred by users over 85% of the time. The significance is practical: reposing rigged assets from text could remove a bottleneck for animation, gaming, and VFX workflows.

Core claim

The central claim is that zero-shot text-driven 3D posing works when the pose signal is generated explicitly instead of distilled. RSActrl replaces the self-attention layers of a multi-view diffusion model so that each target view attends to its corresponding source view and the other target views, which keeps structure and viewpoint fixed while letting pose follow the prompt; DDIM inversion with an automatic depth-selection criterion provides the starting latent. The mesh is then articulated by minimizing mean squared error between keypoints rendered from the mesh and keypoints in the generated target images, with per-view root-bone rotation attenuated for stability. The authors report that

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is RSActrl (Rewired Self-Attention control): instead of a standard self-attention computation where each query attends to keys and values from its own frame, the articulation frame's view k builds its key/value set from the corresponding source-frame view plus the other articulation views, so structure is inherited from the source while pose flexibility comes from prompt-conditioned generation. Around it sits a pipeline of DDIM inversion with time-shifted denoising and an automatic inversion-depth selector based on noise-difference norms; the optimization side uses keypoint alignment — SuperAnimal keypoints for quadrupeds, self-supervised correspondences for birds and

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes the input mesh already has a skeleton rig with bones and skinning weights; if a mesh has no rig, there are no bone parameters to optimize and the keypoint-alignment objective cannot move the geometry.

What would settle it

Run Articulate3D on an unrigged mesh with a simple prompt such as 'front legs up'; if the pose still changes, the rig requirement in Sec. 3.3 is not load-bearing; if nothing moves, the method's scope is exactly already-articulated meshes, regardless of the paper's broad phrasing.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Existing libraries of rigged 3D assets could be reanimated from text prompts, turning static meshes into posed keyframes without manual rigging or per-asset fine-tuning.
  • Because the method is training-free, it inherits the diversity of the base multi-view generator: any improvement in that generator should directly raise the quality of the posed target images and hence of the final articulation.
  • The keypoint-alignment objective is smoother than SDS gradients, so the optimizer avoids local minima and runs faster, making the pipeline practical for batch reposing.
  • The two-step design cleanly separates 2D generation from 3D optimization: the 2D step (RSActrl) is independently useful for language-controlled pose editing in images with viewpoint preservation.
  • The method's ceiling is set by the target image generator: prompts far from the generator's training distribution will fail to articulate well, as the paper acknowledges in Sec. 4.5.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • We read the dependence on an existing skeleton rig as the real boundary of the method: the optimization only works on meshes that already have bones and skinning weights, and the paper never tests an unrigged mesh, so the 'diverse range of 3D objects' is a range of pre-rigged ones.
  • A likely failure mode not isolated in the evaluation: a keypoint detector that cannot see the semantic part being moved (say, a tail or a beak) will give the optimizer no correspondence to pull on, so the pose change will be incomplete even when the target image is correct.
  • An immediate testable extension would feed the posed mesh back through RSActrl to chain poses into a short animation sequence, effectively turning text prompts into keyframe generation without any learned motion model.
  • If the attention-rewiring scheme is the right disentangler, it should transfer to other multi-view generators and to video diffusion, where structure-pose disentanglement would aid controllable generation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Articulate3D, a training-free pipeline that reposes an input 3D mesh according to a text prompt. The method first uses RSActrl, a self-attention rewiring mechanism applied to the MVDream multi-view diffusion model, to generate target images from rendered views of the mesh and the text instruction. It then detects keypoints in both the rendered views and the generated target images, using SuperAnimal for quadrupeds and self-supervised correspondences for other categories, and optimizes bone rotations to minimize keypoint MSE between the two sets. Experiments compare against SDS with Stable Diffusion, MVEdit, MVEdit (Instruct), and GRM Adapter on a set of animal meshes and free-form prompts, reporting CLIP score, CLIP directional similarity, and user preference. The central claim is zero-shot, identity-preserving pose manipulation of 3D meshes.

Significance. If the method works as claimed, it offers a practical training-free alternative to SDS-based or reconstruction-based 3D editing for assets that already have an articulated rig. The paper has several strengths: it avoids per-mesh fine-tuning, uses a multi-view generator to promote viewpoint consistency, and replaces noisy pixel-level SDS gradients with keypoint supervision, which is a sensible choice for articulation optimization. The pipeline is not circular: the target pose is inherited from the text-conditioned generator and the mesh is aligned to generated keypoints using an external detector. However, the actual scope is narrower than the stated headline because the optimization step presupposes a pre-existing skeleton rig, and the evaluation does not directly measure identity preservation despite this being a central claimed benefit. These issues need to be addressed before the contribution can be assessed at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 (Step 2.2) and Sec. 1] The input is defined in Sec. 1 as 'a 3D mesh and a language prompt,' but Step 2.2 optimizes 'the rotation of each bone' against keypoint MSE. This presupposes that the input mesh already has a skeleton rig with a bone hierarchy and skinning weights. For an unrigged mesh there are no bone parameters to optimize, and the keypoint-alignment objective cannot move the geometry. The paper never states this input requirement or describes how the tiger, phoenix, bird, and frog assets in Fig. 4 were rigged. If rig construction is a separate manual or learned step, the method is not zero-shot for arbitrary meshes. Please state the precondition explicitly, provide rigging details for the evaluation assets, or evaluate on unrigged meshes using an automatic rigging stage.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Tables 1-2] The abstract and conclusion claim that the method 'preserves the mesh's identity,' and Fig. 4 labels 'Identity Preservation,' but no quantitative identity metric is reported. CLIP score measures text alignment, and CDS measures directional change in CLIP space; neither measures whether the output mesh's shape, texture, or semantic identity matches the input. The user study preference may conflate pose correctness with identity preservation. Please add a direct identity metric (e.g., LPIPS or cosine similarity between rendered input and output views) or a separate user-study dimension that explicitly asks about identity preservation.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 Step 2.2] The keypoint-alignment optimization is not specified in enough detail to be reproducible. The text says 'minimising the mean squared error between the rendered and target keypoints' and 'the rotation of each bone serves as a parameter,' but no loss equation, camera projection model, per-view weighting, or optimization hyperparameters (learning rate, number of iterations, root-rotation attenuation factor) are given. In addition, the root bone is optimized separately for each view, which is a potential source of global inconsistency because different views can select different root orientations. Please formalize the objective, describe how 2D keypoints from each view are related to the 3D bone parameters, and explain how multi-view consistency is enforced for the root bone.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eq. (4), and Fig. 6] The automatic DDIM inversion depth selection relies on the empirical claim that 'inversion depths corresponding to regions of high noise difference norm correlate with superior reconstruction and articulation quality.' Only one example (the penguin, where depth=25 is selected) is shown, with no quantitative validation of the correlation over the prompt/mesh set. Since this heuristic determines the starting latent for all target images, its failure modes are not characterized. Please validate the selection procedure across the full evaluation set and report how frequently the automatically selected depth agrees with the best manual depth.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 1, Sec. 4.3, Tables 1-2] The preference numbers are inconsistent: the abstract and introduction say 'over 85% of the time,' while Sec. 4.3 reports 90% for Articulate3D and Table 2 reports 86% for RSActrl. Please reconcile these numbers and state the exact protocol and sample size.
  2. [Tables 3 and 5] The absolute CLIP score advantages over the best baseline are often small (e.g., less than 1 point in many rows), and no significance tests or confidence intervals are reported. A win rate over 20 cases is coarse; please report per-prompt variance or a paired test.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The definition of d is unclear: the expression appears to contain stray characters and does not show a norm or averaging operation. Please define the notation cleanly, e.g., d = (1/T) Σ_t ||εθ(x_t, e_p) − εθ(x_t, e_∅)||².
  4. [Sec. 3.3 Step 2.1] For non-quadruped categories, the paper says self-supervised correspondences [37] are used, but it does not specify how keypoints are extracted from those correspondences, how many are used, or how they are matched across views. Please provide these details for reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. 4.5] The limitation section mentions 'training distribution (ObjaVerse)' - likely a typo for 'Objaverse.' Please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Articulate3D is a self-contained, training-free alignment pipeline; the unstated articulated-rig prerequisite is a scope limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is self-contained. The method generates target images with RSActrl by conditioning a pre-trained multi-view diffusion model on the input renders and the text prompt; it then detects keypoints in both the rendered mesh views and the generated target images using external estimators (SuperAnimal or self-supervised correspondences), and optimizes bone rotations to minimize keypoint MSE. The target images are not defined in terms of the final posed mesh, and the bone rotations are not fitted parameters later renamed as predictions; they are per-input optimization variables aligned to externally detected keypoints. The paper's self-citations (refs [9],[10]) appear only in related-work background on pose estimation and are not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The reviewer-noted gap—that Step 2.2 presupposes a skeleton rig with bone hierarchy and skinning weights, while the abstract says only 'a 3D mesh and a language prompt'—is a real scope/precondition omission, but it is not circularity: for an unrigged mesh the optimization would be inapplicable rather than tautologically satisfied. Evaluation via CLIP and user studies may inherit quality from the target-image generator, but that is a benchmarking limitation, not a derivation-level circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method rests on external priors (MVDream, SuperAnimal, DIFT) and several hand-set hyperparameters; it introduces no new physical or learned entities.

free parameters (5)
  • CFG guidance scale = 7.5
    Chosen by hand in Implementation Details; controls how strongly generated target images follow the text prompt.
  • Denoising steps = T=50
    Fixed in all experiments; interacts with time-shifted denoising and inversion depth.
  • DDIM inversion depth = auto-selected, e.g., 25 or 30
    Selected by the noise-difference-norm heuristic in Sec. 3.2.1, validated only qualitatively (Fig. 6).
  • Root bone rotation attenuation = not specified
    Sec. 3.3 says root rotation is scaled down but does not give the scale; directly affects optimization stability and final pose.
  • Number of rendered views = N=8
    Used for RSActrl conditioning and multi-view optimization; no sensitivity analysis.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Input meshes are pre-rigged with a skeleton and skinning weights
    Sec. 3.3 optimizes per-bone rotations, but the paper never states how the rig is obtained or verified for each mesh (tiger, bird, frog, phoenix).
  • domain assumption SuperAnimal (quadrupeds) and DIFT (other animals) provide reliable keypoint/correspondence matches for all test objects
    Sec. 3.3 uses them without error analysis; failure would propagate directly into the optimized pose.
  • ad hoc to paper The noise difference norm correlates with perceived identity/detail preservation
    Sec. 3.2.1 introduces Eq. 4 and claims high values indicate better inversion depth, supported only by one qualitative example.
  • ad hoc to paper Rewiring self-attention per Eq. 3 preserves source structure while allowing pose changes
    This is the design hypothesis for RSActrl; the paper provides qualitative comparisons but no systematic study of when it fails.
  • ad hoc to paper Keypoint MSE is smoother than SDS or image-gradient losses for articulation
    Sec. 4.4 claims this based on one perfect-target ablation, without quantitative comparison to SDS optimization curves.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Articulate3D: Zero-Shot Text-Driven 3D Object Posing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXUMZ7CE

@misc{pith2026250819244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Articulate3D: Zero-Shot Text-Driven 3D Object Posing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXUMZ7CE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19244}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We propose a training-free method, Articulate3D, to pose a 3D asset through language control. Despite advances in vision and language models, this task remains surprisingly challenging. To achieve this goal, we decompose the problem into two steps. We modify a powerful image-generator to create target images conditioned on the input image and a text instruction. We then align the mesh to the target images through a multi-view pose optimisation step. In detail, we introduce a self-attention rewiring mechanism (RSActrl) that decouples the source structure from pose within an image generative model, allowing it to maintain a consistent structure across varying poses. We observed that differentiable rendering is an unreliable signal for articulation optimisation; instead, we use keypoints to establish correspondences between input and target images. The effectiveness of Articulate3D is demonstrated across a diverse range of 3D objects and free-form text prompts, successfully manipulating poses while maintaining the original identity of the mesh. Quantitative evaluations and a comparative user study, in which our method was preferred over 85\% of the time, confirm its superiority over existing approaches. Project page:https://odeb1.github.io/articulate3d_page_deb/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19244 by Anjun Hu, Ashkan Khakzar, Christian Rupprecht, Oishi Deb, Philip Torr.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Results from our proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Architecture Diagram. Here we show a detailed architecture diagram highlighting the two-step process of our proposed training￾free Articulate3D model. naively applying SDS to Multi-View Diffusion Models in either pixel space (resulting in over-saturation, likely due to a high classifier guidance weight) or latent space (produc￾ing red blob-like artefacts) may lead to undesirable artefacts that hinder artic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: RSActrl Comparison. The results for the text prompt “A tiger is sitting” demonstrate our method’s ability to preserve viewpoints while generating the correct pose. The results from the other viewpoints are in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Articulate3D Comparison. Here, we show six results obtained from six different text prompts. MVEdit produces a new mesh that is often not fully faithful to the input. The SDS baseline gets stuck in local minima and thus often cannot follow the text prompt. The full text prompt for each example, as well as results from 8 viewpoints, can be found in the supplementary material from 9 to 14. [4], could not ach… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation. For perfect target images (“A Tiger Hunt￾ing”), the mesh articulation works very well. The first image in both rows shows the articulated rendered image; the middle image represents the rendered and target images being overlaid to show the alignment of key points, and the third image is the target image. Note: here, only leg keypoints have been used for optimisation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation. Our automatic method for “DDIM inversion depth” selection correctly chooses 25 as the optimal depth value. as can be seen from the visual distortions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Baseline Experiment. Naively applying SDS to Multi￾View Diffusion Models in either pixel space (resulting in over￾saturation, left) or latent space (producing red blob-like artefacts, right). Images 1 and 3: step range [540, 700], Images 2 and 4: step range [960, 980]. Varying step ranges made no qualitative difference. RSActrl without Inversion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation. The First image shows the articulated ren￾dered image; the middle image represents the rendered and target images being overlaid to show the alignment of keypoints, and the third image is the generated target. Note: In this example, only leg keypoints have been used, so the head positions are out of context for this example. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Articulate3D Results. Eight views result for the prompt “A hummingbird is folding its wings”. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Articulate3D Results. Eight views results for the prompt “A phoenix is gliding up”. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Articulate3D Results. Eight views results for the prompt “A hummingbird is bending its head”. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Articulate3D Results. Eight views result for the prompt “A tiger is lifting its front legs”. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Articulate3D Results. Eight views result for the prompt “A frog is jumping”. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Articulate3D Results. Eight views result for the prompt “A seagull is stretching its wings up”. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: RSActrl Comparison. The results demonstrate our method’s ability to preserve viewpoints while generating the correct pose. In contrast, other methods alter the viewpoint and also fail to produce the right pose. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: RSActrl Comparison. The results demonstrate our method’s ability to preserve viewpoints while generating the correct pose. In contrast, other methods alter the viewpoint and also fail to produce the right pose. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Ablation. Ablation experiment with additional mask loss for multi-view optimisation. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Ablation. This result shows that the viewpoints and poses are both distorted for the “RSActrl without Inversion” experiment for the prompt “A lion is jumping” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Ablation. Automatic DDIM Inversion depth selection for RSActrl. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Ablation. Partial inversion for better detail preservation: The initial position for the first bad kangaroo is t = 25, while the good kangaroo starts from t = 35. Similarly, the bad horse begins at t = 5, and the good horse starts from t = 25. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_20.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 2

    2023

  2. [2]

    Masactrl: Tuning-free mu- tual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing

    Mingdeng Cao, Xintao Wang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, Xi- aohu Qie, and Yinqiang Zheng. Masactrl: Tuning-free mu- tual self-attention control for consistent image synthesis and editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 22560–22570,

  3. [3]

    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 International Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ICCV), 2021. 1

    2021

  4. [4]

    Generic 3d diffusion adapter using controlled multi-view editing

    Hansheng Chen, Ruoxi Shi, Yulin Liu, Bokui Shen, Ji- ayuan Gu, Gordon Wetzstein, Hao Su, and Leonidas Guibas. Generic 3d diffusion adapter using controlled multi-view editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12032 , 2024. 3, 7, 8, 10, 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Dge: Direct gaussian 3d editing by consistent multi-view editing

    Minghao Chen, Iro Laina, and Andrea Vedaldi. Dge: Direct gaussian 3d editing by consistent multi-view editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18929, 2024. 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Shap-editor: Instruction-guided latent 3d editing in seconds

    Minghao Chen, Junyu Xie, Iro Laina, and Andrea Vedaldi. Shap-editor: Instruction-guided latent 3d editing in seconds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 26456–26466, 2024. 3

    2024

  7. [7]

    Fan- tasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high- quality text-to-3d content creation, 2023

    Rui Chen, Yongwei Chen, Ningxin Jiao, and Kui Jia. Fan- tasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high- quality text-to-3d content creation, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  8. [8]

    Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance

    Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord. Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 2

    2023

  9. [9]

    Towards multi-modal animal pose estimation: An in-depth analysis,

    Qianyi Deng, Oishi Deb, Amir Patel, Christian Rupprecht, Philip Torr, Niki Trigoni, and Andrew Markham. Towards multi-modal animal pose estimation: An in-depth analysis,

  10. [10]

    Towards multi-modal animal pose estimation: A survey and in-depth analysis, 2025

    Qianyi Deng, Oishi Deb, Amir Patel, Christian Rupprecht, Philip Torr, Niki Trigoni, and Andrew Markham. Towards multi-modal animal pose estimation: A survey and in-depth analysis, 2025. 2

    2025

  11. [11]

    An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patash- nik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-or. Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention control. In The Eleventh Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 2, 6, 8, 12, 13

    2023

  13. [13]

    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. 1

    2020

  14. [14]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Fresca: Unveiling the scaling space in diffusion models

    Chao Huang, Susan Liang, Yunlong Tang, Li Ma, Yapeng Tian, and Chenliang Xu. Fresca: Unveiling the scaling space in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02154, 2025. 5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. Imagic: Text-based real image editing with diffusion models. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6007–6017, 2023. 2

    2023

  17. [17]

    Synthetic Data for Machine Learning: Revolutionize Your Approach to Machine Learning with this Comprehensive Conceptual Guide

    Abdulrahman Kerim. Synthetic Data for Machine Learning: Revolutionize Your Approach to Machine Learning with this Comprehensive Conceptual Guide. Packt Publishing, Birm- ingham, UK, 2023. 1

    2023

  18. [18]

    Alleviating exposure bias in diffusion models through sampling with shifted time steps

    Mingxiao Li, Tingyu Qu, Ruicong Yao, Wei Sun, and Marie- Francine Moens. Alleviating exposure bias in diffusion models through sampling with shifted time steps. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2024. 5

    2024

  19. [19]

    Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation, 2023

    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, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  20. [20]

    Towards understanding cross and self-attention in stable diffusion for text-guided image editing

    Bingyan Liu, Chengyu Wang, Tingfeng Cao, Kui Jia, and Jun Huang. Towards understanding cross and self-attention in stable diffusion for text-guided image editing. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7817–7826, 2024. 2, 6, 8, 12, 13

    2024

  21. [21]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object, 2023

    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, 2023. 3

    2023

  22. [22]

    SDEdit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. SDEdit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2022. 2, 6, 8, 12, 13

    2022

  23. [23]

    Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6038–6047, 2023. 2

    2023

  24. [24]

    T2i- adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models

    Chong Mou, Xintao Wang, Liangbin Xie, Yanze Wu, Jian Zhang, Zhongang Qi, Ying Shan, and Xiaohu Qie. T2i- adapter: Learning adapters to dig out more controllable ability for text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08453, 2023. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Barron, and Ben Milden- hall

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  26. [26]

    Learning 9 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 9 transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021. 1

    2021

  27. [27]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22500– 22510, 2023. 2

    2023

  28. [28]

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

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Long Mai, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d gen- eration. arXiv:2308.16512, 2023. 3, 4, 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Denois- ing diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denois- ing diffusion implicit models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. 5, 6

    2021

  30. [30]

    Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation

    Narek Tumanyan, Michal Geyer, Shai Bagon, and Tali Dekel. Plug-and-play diffusion features for text-driven image-to-image translation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1921–1930, 2023. 2, 6, 8, 12, 13

    1921

  31. [31]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates, Inc.,

  32. [32]

    De- tecting, explaining, and mitigating memorization in diffusion models

    Yuxin Wen, Yuchen Liu, Chen Chen, and Lingjuan Lyu. De- tecting, explaining, and mitigating memorization in diffusion models. ICLR, 2023. 5

    2023

  33. [33]

    Structured 3d latents for scalable and versatile 3d gen- eration

    Jianfeng Xiang, Zelong Lv, Sicheng Xu, Yu Deng, Ruicheng Wang, Bowen Zhang, Dong Chen, Xin Tong, and Jiaolong Yang. Structured 3d latents for scalable and versatile 3d gen- eration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01506, 2024. 1, 3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Grm: Large gaus- sian reconstruction model for efficient 3d reconstruction and generation

    Yinghao Xu, Zifan Shi, Wang Yifan, Sida Peng, Ceyuan Yang, Yujun Shen, and Wetzstein Gordon. Grm: Large gaus- sian reconstruction model for efficient 3d reconstruction and generation. arxiv: 2403.14621, 2024. 3, 6, 8, 10, 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Superanimal pretrained pose estimation models for behavioral analysis

    Shaokai Ye, Anastasiia Filippova, Jessy Lauer, Steffen Schneider, Maxime Vidal, Tian Qiu, Alexander Mathis, and Mackenzie Weygandt Mathis. Superanimal pretrained pose estimation models for behavioral analysis. Nature Commu- nications, 15:5165, 2024. 3, 6

    2024

  36. [36]

    Multimodal image synthesis and editing: A survey and taxonomy

    Fangneng Zhan, Yingchen Yu, Rongliang Wu, Jiahui Zhang, Shijian Lu, Lingjie Liu, Adam Kortylewski, Christian Theobalt, and Eric Xing. Multimodal image synthesis and editing: A survey and taxonomy. IEEE Transactions on Pat- tern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2023. 2

    2023

  37. [37]

    A tale of two features: Stable diffusion complements DINO for zero-shot semantic correspondence

    Junyi Zhang, Charles Herrmann, Junhwa Hur, Luisa Pola- nia Cabrera, Varun Jampani, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. A tale of two features: Stable diffusion complements DINO for zero-shot semantic correspondence. In Thirty- seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 2023. 2, 3, 6

    2023

  38. [38]

    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

    2023

  39. [39]

    Hunyuan3d 2.0: Scaling diffu- sion models for high resolution textured 3d assets generation

    Zibo Zhao, Zeqiang Lai, Qingxiang Lin, Yunfei Zhao, Haolin Liu, Shuhui Yang, Yifei Feng, Mingxin Yang, Sheng Zhang, Xianghui Yang, et al. Hunyuan3d 2.0: Scaling diffu- sion models for high resolution textured 3d assets generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12202, 2025. 1 10 Articulate3D: Zero-Shot Text-Driven 3D Object Posing Supplementary Material The su...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    io/articulate3d_page_deb/

    Interactive 3D and Animation results: The outputs in 3D and the animation results can be viewed at our project page here: https://odeb1.github. io/articulate3d_page_deb/

  41. [41]

    Articulate3D more and detailed results:

  42. [42]

    9 to Fig

    Visual results of Articulate3D in more views i.e 8 views for various text prompts are shown here Fig. 9 to Fig. 14

  43. [43]

    3 and Clip Direc- tional Score (CDS) evaluation results in Tab

    Clip score evaluation results in Tab. 3 and Clip Direc- tional Score (CDS) evaluation results in Tab. 4 for Artic- ulate3D and other prior methods

  44. [44]

    RSActrl more and detailed results:

  45. [45]

    15 and Fig

    Visual results of RSActrl in more views are shown in Fig. 15 and Fig. 16

  46. [46]

    5 and Clip Direc- tional Score (CDS) in Tab

    Clip score evaluation result in Tab. 5 and Clip Direc- tional Score (CDS) in Tab. 6 for RSActrl and other prior methods

  47. [47]

    Implementation in pixel space results in over-saturation, likely due to high classifier guidance, whereas implementation in latent space generates red, blob- like artefacts

    Baseline: SDS with Stable Diffusion (SD) Here, in Figure 7, we visually illustrate why a naive appli- cation of SDS on Multi-View Diffusion Models produces undesirable results. Implementation in pixel space results in over-saturation, likely due to high classifier guidance, whereas implementation in latent space generates red, blob- like artefacts. Both o...

  48. [48]

    Fig- ure 8 presents the results of our articulation optimisation process

    More Ablation Experiments Varying number of Keypoints for Articulation. Fig- ure 8 presents the results of our articulation optimisation process. This figure highlights the accurate alignment achieved between the rendered image of the 3D mesh and the generated target image, showcasing the benefits of using keypoint alignment. Mask Loss for Articulation. W...

  49. [49]

    A hummingbird is folding its wings

    Articulation Hummingbird wings folded MVEdit: Identity Preservation: Pose: SDS with SD: Identity Preservation: Pose: Ours (Articulate3D): Identity Preservation: Pose: MVEdit (Instruct): Identity Preservation: Pose: GRM Adapter: Identity Preservation: Pose: ——— Input Mesh ——— Prompt: A hummingbird is folding its wings. Figure 9. Articulate3D Results. Eight...

  50. [50]

    A phoenix is gliding up

    Articulation Tiger jump, stand back 2 legs —— Input Mesh —— MVEdit: Identity Preservation: Pose: SDS with SD: Identity Preservation: Pose: Ours (Articulate3D): Identity Preservation: Pose: MVEdit (Instruct): Identity Preservation: Pose: GRM Adapter: Identity Preservation: Pose: Prompt: A phoenix is gliding up. Figure 10. Articulate3D Results. Eight views ...

  51. [51]

    A hummingbird is bending its head

    Articulation Hummingbird wings folded MVEdit: Identity Preservation: Pose: SDS with SD: Identity Preservation: Pose: Ours (Articulate3D): Identity Preservation: Pose: MVEdit (Instruct): Identity Preservation: Pose: GRM Adapter: Identity Preservation: Pose: ——— Input Mesh ——— Prompt: A hummingbird is bending its head. Figure 11. Articulate3D Results. Eight...

  52. [52]

    A tiger is lifting its front legs

    Articulation Tiger jump, stand back 2 legs ——— Input Mesh ——— MVEdit: Identity Preservation: Pose: SDS with SD: Identity Preservation: Pose: Ours (Articulate3D): Identity Preservation: Pose: MVEdit (Instruct): Identity Preservation: Pose: GRM Adapter: Identity Preservation: Pose: Prompt: A tiger is lifting its front legs up. Figure 12. Articulate3D Result...

  53. [53]

    A frog is jumping

    Articulation Tiger jump, stand back 2 legs —— Input Mesh —— MVEdit: Identity Preservation: Pose: SDS with SD: Identity Preservation: Pose: Ours (Articulate3D): Identity Preservation: Pose: MVEdit (Instruct): Identity Preservation: Pose: GRM Adapter: Identity Preservation: Pose: Prompt: A frog is jumping. Figure 13. Articulate3D Results. Eight views result...

  54. [54]

    A seagull is stretching its wings up

    Articulation Tiger jump, stand back 2 legs —— Input Mesh —— MVEdit: Identity Preservation: Pose: SDS with SD: Identity Preservation: Pose: Ours (Articulate3D): Identity Preservation: Pose: MVEdit (Instruct): Identity Preservation: Pose: GRM Adapter: Identity Preservation: Pose: Prompt: A seagull is stretching its wings up. Figure 14. Articulate3D Results....

  55. [55]

    [4] [4] [Baseline] (ours) CS CS CS CS CS

  56. [56]

    29.164 30.012 29.264 28.049 30.121

    A hummingbird is folding its wings down. 29.164 30.012 29.264 28.049 30.121

  57. [57]

    28.954 28.014 28.972 29.142 30.391

    A tiger is lifting its front legs up. 28.954 28.014 28.972 29.142 30.391

  58. [58]

    29.823 30.683 29.815 30.814 30.652

    A seagull is stretching its wings up. 29.823 30.683 29.815 30.814 30.652

  59. [59]

    28.399 28.012 28.961 28.696 30.307

    A tiger is stretching its front leg forward. 28.399 28.012 28.961 28.696 30.307

  60. [60]

    28.163 31.308 28.069 31.059 30.943

    A hummingbird is looking up. 28.163 31.308 28.069 31.059 30.943

  61. [61]

    28.836 30.001 29.759 29.981 30.012

    A frog is jumping. 28.836 30.001 29.759 29.981 30.012

  62. [62]

    28.971 30.112 29.841 30.161 30.949

    An eagle is lifting its wings up. 28.971 30.112 29.841 30.161 30.949

  63. [63]

    28.980 29.973 29.852 29.416 29.938

    A sheep is running. 28.980 29.973 29.852 29.416 29.938

  64. [64]

    28.907 29.013 29.784 27.844 30.185

    A tiger is sitting. 28.907 29.013 29.784 27.844 30.185

  65. [65]

    28.094 28.885 29.841 29.474 30.719

    A tiger is walking. 28.094 28.885 29.841 29.474 30.719

  66. [66]

    28.098 28.331 29.815 30.110 29.163

    A brown bird is raising its wings. 28.098 28.331 29.815 30.110 29.163

  67. [67]

    28.982 28.293 29.762 28.110 31.910

    A penguin is bringing its flippers down. 28.982 28.293 29.762 28.110 31.910

  68. [68]

    28.095 30.029 29.853 28.110 29.200

    A phoenix is gliding up. 28.095 30.029 29.853 28.110 29.200

  69. [69]

    28.951 28.331 29.082 28.195 30.110

    A giraffe is bending its front leg. 28.951 28.331 29.082 28.195 30.110

    work page

  70. [70]

    28.906 28.981 29.851 29.010 31.782

    An elephant is lowering its trunk down. 28.906 28.981 29.851 29.010 31.782

    work page

  71. [71]

    29.071 28.701 29.812 29.111 30.120

    A hummingbird is bending its head down. 29.071 28.701 29.812 29.111 30.120

    work page

  72. [72]

    28.971 29.918 29.861 29.083 31.293

    A dog is sitting. 28.971 29.918 29.861 29.083 31.293

    work page

  73. [73]

    28.094 29.023 29.813 29.718 31.078

    A golden bird is gliding up. 28.094 29.023 29.813 29.718 31.078

    work page

  74. [74]

    29.061 29.378 29.075 29.281 31.837

    A phoenix is lowering its wings. 29.061 29.378 29.075 29.281 31.837

    work page

  75. [75]

    28.096 28.532 28.163 29.916 30.941 Table 3

    A golden bird is folding its wings. 28.096 28.532 28.163 29.916 30.941 Table 3. Result for our Articulate3D method with nine text prompts evaluated using Clip Score is shown here. 10 Sl no. Text Prompts GRM MVEdit MVEdit SDS Articulate3D Adapter (Instruct) with SD

    work page

  76. [76]

    [4] [4] [Baseline] (ours) CDS CDS CDS CDS CDS

    work page

  77. [77]

    0.28932 0.29981 0.29731 0.29991 0.30010

    A hummingbird is folding its wings down. 0.28932 0.29981 0.29731 0.29991 0.30010

    work page

  78. [78]

    0.28101 0.30017 0.29041 0.30029 0.30031

    A tiger is lifting its front legs up. 0.28101 0.30017 0.29041 0.30029 0.30031

    work page

  79. [79]

    0.28161 0.29872 0.29631 0.31012 0.30765

    A seagull is stretching its wings up. 0.28161 0.29872 0.29631 0.31012 0.30765

    work page

  80. [80]

    0.28135 0.28012 0.29528 0.28686 0.30298

    A tiger is stretching its front leg forward. 0.28135 0.28012 0.29528 0.28686 0.30298

    work page

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.