Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

A text-described category can reshape an existing 3D model into a new hybrid object: one fused front-view image anchors the texture and shape diffusion, and the outputs beat seven baselines.

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 ↗

C33D blends a 3D model with an object category by generating a fused front view, then using texture and shape multi-view diffusion plus adaptive inversion to reconstruct a novel, consistent 3D model.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection New task, plausible pipeline, but the headline metric is too close to the method's own optimization to be trusted without artifacts. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02357 v1 pith:P7WJ3QD6 submitted 2025-09-02 cs.CV

Category-Aware 3D Object Composition with Disentangled Texture and Shape Multi-view Diffusion

Zeren Xiong , Zikun Chen , Zedong Zhang , Xiang Li , Ying Tai , Jian Yang , Jun Li This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords category-aware 3D synthesis3D-to-3D generationmulti-view diffusiontext-image fusiontexture consistencyshape refinementadaptive inversionnovel object composition
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

The paper introduces and defends a new task: taking an existing 3D model and blending it with another object category given as text—shark plus "crocodile", teddy bear plus "greenhouse"—to produce a novel 3D object that keeps the original's structure while clearly acquiring the new category's look. It argues that existing image-to-3D and 3D-to-3D systems fail at this combination because they cannot bind two content sources into one consistent object, producing mismatched textures or geometrically broken shapes. C33D's claim is that the gap can be closed without training anything new: render the input model from six views, fuse its front view with the category text using ATIH to make one novel anchor image, then let a texture multi-view diffusion carry that appearance to the other five views while a shape multi-view diffusion corrects geometry in RGB and normal maps together; a fusion-guided adaptive inversion searches for the restoration step that best balances preserving the original model and adopting the category. The authors report that this pipeline beats seven state-of-the-art baselines on aesthetic, geometric-fusion, and DINO similarity scores and wins large majorities in user studies, making open-domain 3D concept mashups practical for games, film, and VR asset pipelines.

Core claim

C33D is claimed to be the first category-aware 3D-to-3D synthesis method: it takes a 3D model M and a target category T and outputs a new model O that fuses both. The route is a chain of three modules around a single fused image. ATIH combines M's front-view render with the category text into a novel front-view image I_f^nov. Texture multi-view diffusion (TMDiff) denoises the other five views while injecting I_f^nov's latent key/value features into the self-attention of the upsampling UNet blocks, transferring texture without altering geometry. Shape multi-view diffusion (SMDiff) then inverts the TMDiff-processed RGB images and the original normal maps together, conditioned on the same front

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the fused front-view latent x_f^nov, produced by ATIH: it is the only semantic anchor, and every other view is steered by it. TMDiff transfers its appearance by replacing the key and value in the multi-view self-attention of the denoising UNet (MSelfAttn(x_s^t, η) = Softmax(Q_s^t (K_nov)^T / √d) V_nov), so each non-front view inherits the fused texture while the geometry of its own render is left in place. SMDiff applies the same conditioning, plus concatenation with the anchor latent and an augmented time embedding, to the joint inversion of RGB images and normal maps. FAI's fusion score, the product of a DINO-based similarity to the input model and a CLIP-base

Load-bearing premise

The fused front-view image produced by ATIH is faithful enough—in both category semantics and implied geometry—that injecting its features can correctly steer every other view; if the target category's defining traits are not visible from the front, the pipeline has no information source to recover them elsewhere.

What would settle it

Fuse a plain three-dimensional fish model with the category "shark" and inspect the back-view RGB and normal maps for dorsal fin and tail features. A genuine fusion must add shark features that exist only in the back half; if the back view keeps the original fish tail and body, the front-view anchor failed to propagate shape and the reconstructed model will not look like a shark from any novel viewpoint.

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

If this is right

  • Text-only category fusion becomes possible for arbitrary 3D assets such as game and VR models or character bases, with no fine-tuning: the process runs on a pretrained UNet using inversion and self-attention feature injection.
  • Only one fused 2D anchor is needed to drive all six views, so adding a new category costs roughly one ATIH image plus the two diffusion passes, independent of the category's complexity.
  • The framework composes more than two concepts: the paper demonstrates progressive fusion (a penguin plus "barn" plus "butternut squash") by feeding a second ATIH fusion forward through the same pipeline.
  • The F_sim metric, defined as the product of geometric similarity to the input model and semantic similarity to the category text, offers a single-number protocol for judging whether a fused 3D object actually honors both inputs.
  • Because texture and shape are handled by separate diffusion stages conditioned on the same anchor, the two can in principle be controlled independently—e.g., adopting a category's appearance while deliberately keeping the original geometry, or vice versa.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The pipeline's ceiling is largely set by ATIH's front-view fusion quality: a stronger 2D semantic mixer swapped into the same multi-view machinery should improve DINO-I and F_sim without any other change—a directly testable extension.
  • The per-view weights (front view capped at 0.10, the other five at 0.18) reveal a deliberate reliance on a single fused front view as the only anchor; fusing front and back anchors instead could supply category features that live in the back half of the object, which is exactly where the weakest assumption bites.
  • Because FAI selects α using DINO and CLIP similarities and the reported F_sim uses the same features, some of the reported gain may reflect selection on the metric itself; an independent measure such as novel-view rendering fidelity or mesh quality would settle whether the adaptive step genuinely improves the 3D output.
  • The neural-SDF reconstruction redundancy acknowledged in the limitation section suggests the current bottleneck is the reconstructor rather than the diffusion stages: coupling the refined views to a direct mesh-tokenizing generator should make the outputs industry-usable without changing the fusion core.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes C33D, a category-aware 3D-to-3D synthesis pipeline that combines an input 3D model and a target object category description to produce a novel 3D object. The method renders multi-view RGB images and normal maps from the input model, uses ATIH to generate a novel front-view image, then applies two multi-view diffusion stages: TMDiff for texture consistency across views and SMDiff for shape consistency, with FAI adaptively selecting the diffusion inversion step α by maximizing a fusion score. The final multi-view images and normal maps are reconstructed into a 3D model. Experiments compare against image-to-3D and 3D-to-3D baselines on a constructed dataset, reporting quantitative metrics and user-study preferences.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper addresses a genuinely new and useful task—composing a 3D model with a target category—and does so with a modular pipeline built from existing components. The qualitative results are extensive and often visually convincing, and the user study, despite its limitations, consistently favors the proposed method. The authors should be credited for clearly framing the task, providing a complete system, and including ablations. However, the quantitative evaluation is not yet independently convincing: the headline metric Fsim is structurally similar to the objective used to select α in FAI, the test set is filtered by aesthetic and human-preference scores, and no error bars or statistical tests are reported. The central claim of consistent superiority is therefore plausible but not established at the level the paper asserts.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (6)–(10), Table 1] The FAI selection objective and the proposed evaluation metric Fsim are structurally overlapping. FAI chooses α* by maximizing F(α) = Σ_s w_s · S_3D^s(α) · S_text^s(α), where S_3D is a per-view DINO similarity to the input model and S_text is a CLIP similarity to the target text. The headline metric Fsim = S_3D(O,M) × S_text(O,T) is the same product of original-model similarity (F-score + DINO) and CLIP text similarity, computed on the final reconstruction. Thus the method has an optimization advantage on Fsim that the baselines do not receive, since baselines use default hyperparameters. The report that 'C33D consistently outperforms all baselines across AES, Fsim, and DINO-I' is therefore not an independent confirmation of fusion quality. To support the claim, the authors should report results under a fixed α for all methods, or select α with a metric that is not aligned with Fsim, and
  2. [§4.1, §4.2, Appendix A] The quantitative evaluation is weakened by dataset selection and missing statistical rigor. The test set is constructed by filtering ATIH-generated images with AES and HPS scores, selecting 'the most representative images.' This biases the evaluation toward cases where the front-view fusion assumption holds—the very component the method depends on. Additionally, Table 1 reports no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests, so the observed margins (e.g., DINO-I 0.715 vs. 0.698) cannot be distinguished from noise. The user study also lacks inter-rater agreement measures. Given that the central claim is 'consistently outperforms all baselines,' the authors should provide per-example results, error bars, statistical tests, and an analysis of cases where ATIH's front-view output is not faithful.
  3. [§3.1–§3.2, Fig. 8] The method's conditioning strategy relies entirely on the ATIH-generated front-view image I_f^nov as the semantic anchor for all non-front views via self-attention injection. The paper does not analyze cases where ATIH produces a geometrically inconsistent or category-specific feature that is not visible in the front view. For example, a category might require back/side features that cannot be inferred from the front view, and the diffusion refinements cannot recover them. This is a load-bearing scope limitation, not merely a presentation issue. The authors should either add a failure analysis or explicitly state and test the conditions under which the front-view anchor is sufficient.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (1) vs Eq. (3)] In Eq. (1), the self-attention condition is η = x_f^nov, but the inversion reformulation in Eq. (3) states τ = η = Null. Please clarify whether the null condition is used only for inversion while the generation steps use the injected features.
  2. [§4.1, Appendix A] The dataset description is inconsistent: '110 pairs of 3D models and text descriptions' is difficult to reconcile with '22 models' and 'Each model has 100 associated descriptions' (which would imply 2200 possible pairs). Please specify whether 110 is a selected subset and how the pairing was performed.
  3. [§4.1, Metrics and Ref. [19]] The F-score used for geometric similarity is described as 'thresholded at 0.02' and cites Ref. [19], which is a point-cloud registration F-score paper. The standard F-score for 3D reconstruction (e.g., from a reconstruction benchmark) should be cited and the definition clarified.
  4. [§4.3 and Appendix D] The user study counts are ambiguous: §4.3 says '490 responses for each study,' while Appendix D says '98 participants contributed 490 votes.' With 98 participants and 5 questions per study, each study has 490 responses, so the total is 980; please state the per-study totals consistently.
  5. [§3.3 and Appendix C] The phrase 'ternary search over [1, 901] in increments of 100 steps' is unclear, since ternary search normally applies to a continuous interval. Please specify whether the search operates over the discrete set {1,101,...,901} and how the ternary search terminates on that set.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

FAI selection objective is re-used as the proposed Fsim evaluation metric, making the headline Fsim/DINO-I superiority partially self-aligned.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Eqs. (6)-(10); Section 4.2, Table 1]
    "To determine the optimal inversion step α, we perform ternary search over [1,901] ... α∗ = arg maxα F(α). ... To further assess the overall fusion quality of the output 3D object O ... we propose a simple yet effective metric inspired by Eq. (6). Specifically, the evaluation score is computed as: Fsim = S3D(O,M) × Stext(O,T)"

    FAI selects α by maximizing F(α), a weighted product of per-view similarity to the input 3D model and CLIP similarity to the target text (Eqs. 6-8). The headline evaluation metric Fsim is the same product structure—similarity to M times similarity to T—explicitly 'inspired by Eq. (6)' and computed on the final reconstruction. Reporting Fsim as evidence of superiority is therefore partly self-referential: the method is evaluated on the very objective it was allowed to search over. Baselines without an equivalent per-instance search are compared on a metric the authors' hyperparameter selection was designed to maximize.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Eqs. (7)-(8); Section 4.1 Metrics; Section 4.2, Table 1]
    "S^s_3D(α) = λ·cos(φ(I^s_SMDiff(α)), φ(I^s)) + (1−λ)·cos(φ(N^s_SMDiff(α)), φ(N^s)) ... S^s_text(α) = cos(CLIP(I^s_SMDiff(α)), CLIP(T))"

    The same DINO and CLIP cosine similarities that define the FAI objective are subsequently reported as the independent metrics DINO-I and CLIP-T in Table 1. Since α is chosen per example by maximizing these similarities, the DINO-I/CLIP-T margins are inflated by the search; they are not independent confirmations of fusion quality. This is a selection-bias form of fitted-input-called-prediction, though the metrics are external and the effect is partial.

full rationale

The core 3D pipeline (TMDiff/SMDiff) is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. ATIH [62] is previous same-author work, but it is used as a component rather than as proof of C33D's claims, so self-citation is not the main issue. The principal circularity is in the evaluation: Fsim is explicitly 'inspired by Eq. (6)', i.e., by the FAI objective that selects α, and DINO-I/CLIP-T are the same similarity functions used in that selection. Thus the quantitative superiority claim in Table 1 is partly self-aligned. Independent metrics (AES, HPS) and the user study provide mitigating evidence, but the strongest reported fusion metric is not independent of the method's own optimization target.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or representational entities. It relies on a chain of existing learned models (ATIH, SDXLturbo, Era3D, Wonder3D, DINOv2, CLIP) and a small set of hand-set hyperparameters. The most significant unstated assumption is that a single fused front-view 2D image can drive coherent multi-view shape and texture synthesis through the described conditioning mechanisms.

free parameters (2)
  • view weights w_s = w_f=0.10, w_fr=w_r=w_b=w_l=w_fl=0.18
    Manually set in Section 4.1 and C to balance multi-view consistency; these weights directly affect the fusion score F(alpha) used for inversion-step selection and the reported Fsim metric.
  • lambda in Eq. 7 = 0.5
    Hand-picked to balance geometric and texture similarity in S_3D^s(alpha); this choice influences the optimal alpha found by FAI.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption ATIH produces a semantically and geometrically valid fused front-view image for arbitrary 3D model and category text pairs.
    Loaded in Section 3.1 and 3.2 where I_f^nov is the sole anchor for all multi-view conditioning. If ATIH fails on a pair, the whole pipeline inherits the failure.
  • standard math The ReNoise inversion approximation epsilon_theta(x_t,t) approx epsilon_theta(x_{t-1},t) holds for the multi-view setting.
    Used in Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 to derive the noise addition steps; this is a standard approximation from prior work [17,14].
  • domain assumption Pretrained diffusion backbones (SDXLturbo, Era3D) remain effective when features are injected or inverted in the described manner.
    TMDiff and SMDiff rely on the pretrained UNets' ability to propagate injected key/value features and to invert multi-view renderings; no fine-tuning is performed.
  • domain assumption Wonder3D's reconstruction from multi-view images and normal maps yields a valid 3D model.
    The final reconstruction stage uses Wonder3D/NeuS as a black box (Section 4.1, C); the pipeline's output quality depends on this external reconstruction module.
  • domain assumption DINOv2 and CLIP cosine similarities are valid proxies for 3D shape/texture fidelity and semantic alignment respectively.
    Used in the fusion score F(alpha) (Eqs. 6-8) to select alpha and in the evaluation metric Fsim (Eq. 10). If these similarities do not track perceptual quality, the adaptive inversion and the headline metric are not meaningful.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Category-Aware 3D Object Composition with Disentangled Texture and Shape Multi-view Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7WJ3QD6

@misc{pith2026250902357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Category-Aware 3D Object Composition with Disentangled Texture and Shape Multi-view Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7WJ3QD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02357}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this paper, we tackle a new task of 3D object synthesis, where a 3D model is composited with another object category to create a novel 3D model. However, most existing text/image/3D-to-3D methods struggle to effectively integrate multiple content sources, often resulting in inconsistent textures and inaccurate shapes. To overcome these challenges, we propose a straightforward yet powerful approach, category+3D-to-3D (C33D), for generating novel and structurally coherent 3D models. Our method begins by rendering multi-view images and normal maps from the input 3D model, then generating a novel 2D object using adaptive text-image harmony (ATIH) with the front-view image and a text description from another object category as inputs. To ensure texture consistency, we introduce texture multi-view diffusion, which refines the textures of the remaining multi-view RGB images based on the novel 2D object. For enhanced shape accuracy, we propose shape multi-view diffusion to improve the 2D shapes of both the multi-view RGB images and the normal maps, also conditioned on the novel 2D object. Finally, these outputs are used to reconstruct a complete and novel 3D model. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, yielding impressive 3D creations, such as shark(3D)-crocodile(text) in the first row of Fig. 1. A project page is available at: https://xzr52.github.io/C33D/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02357 by Jian Yang, Jun Li, Xiang Li, Ying Tai, Zedong Zhang, Zeren Xiong, Zikun Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We propose a simple yet effective approach to create new 3D objects by combining a 3D model with another object [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Our category+3D-to-3D framework comprises ATIH [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of shape accuracy. Our SMDiff demon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different results with varying values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison with existing image-to-3D methods—using images generated by ATIH [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparisons with 3D-to-3D methods. We observe that ThemeStation [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ablation study of SMDiff and TMDiff. Specifically, in the image-to-3D comparison, C33D obtained 72.45% of the total votes, substantially surpassing LGM [49] (4.90%), Era3D [29] (13.47%), Vfusion3D [20] (1.84%), and CRM [56] (7.35%). In the 3D-to-3D comparison, our method achieved a dominant 73.67% vote share, significantly outperforming Themestation [54] (6.73%), Phidias [55] (16.33%), and Mvedit [7] (3.27… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Original 3D model Set. the direct generation of more streamlined and efficient industrial￾grade meshes. This integration will enhance both the usability and performance of the generated models in real-world applications. C Implementation Details In our C33D framework, we render both RGB images and normal maps from six predefined viewpoints [0 ◦ , 45◦ , −45◦ , −90◦ , 90◦ , 180◦ ] of the input 3D model to ca… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative comparison in the ablation study. Ours [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ablation study on the integration of front-view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Progressive multi-category fusion: the original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparisons with 3D-to-3D methods. We observe that our method better preserves object structure and fusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: more results 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: more results Gold 3D Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: more results 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: more results Copper 3D Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: more results Welder 3D Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: more results 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: An example of a user study comparing various Image-to-3D methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: An example of a user study comparing 3D-to-3D method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_22.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

74 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Rameen Abdal, Hsin-Ying Lee, Peihao Zhu, Menglei Chai, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Peter Wonka, and Sergey Tulyakov. 2023. 3DAvatarGAN: Bridging Domains for Personalized Editable Avatars. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 1784–1793

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Nitin Arora, Mamta Martolia Arora, and Esha Arora. 2016. A novel ternary search algorithm. International Journal of Computer Applications 144, 11 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Omer Bar-Tal, Lior Yariv, Yaron Lipman, and Tali Dekel. 2023. MultiDiffusion: Fus- ing Diffusion Paths for Controlled Image Generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 1737–1752

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A. Efros. 2023. InstructPix2Pix: Learning to Follow Image Editing Instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 18392–18402

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Cheng Chen, Xiaofeng Yang, Fan Yang, Chengzeng Feng, Zhoujie Fu, Chuan- Sheng Foo, Guosheng Lin, and Fayao Liu. 2024. Sculpt3D: Multi-View Consistent Text-to-3D Generation with Sparse 3D Prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 10228–10237

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Dar-Yen Chen, Hamish Tennent, and Ching-Wen Hsu. 2024. ArtAdapter: Text-to- Image Style Transfer using Multi-Level Style Encoder and Explicit Adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 8619–8628

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Hansheng Chen, Ruoxi Shi, Yulin Liu, Bokui Shen, Jiayuan Gu, Gordon Wetzstein, Hao Su, and Leonidas Guibas. 2024. Generic 3d diffusion adapter using controlled multi-view editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12032 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Tianrun Chen, Chaotao Ding, Shangzhan Zhang, Chunan Yu, Ying Zang, Zejian Li, Sida Peng, and Lingyun Sun. 2024. Rapid 3D Model Generation with Intuitive 3D Input. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 12554–12564

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Yiwen Chen, Yikai Wang, Yihao Luo, Zhengyi Wang, Zilong Chen, Jun Zhu, Chi Zhang, and Guosheng Lin. 2024. MeshAnything V2: Artist-Created Mesh Generation With Adjacent Mesh Tokenization. arXiv:2408.02555 [cs.CV] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2408.02555

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Zilong Chen, Feng Wang, and Huaping Liu. 2024. Text-to-3d using gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 21401–21412

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Xinhua Cheng, Tianyu Yang, Jianan Wang, Yu Li, Lei Zhang, Jian Zhang, and Li Yuan. 2023. Progressive3d: Progressively local editing for text-to-3d content creation with complex semantic prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11784 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Jiwoo Chung, Sangeek Hyun, and Jae-Pil Heo. 2024. Style injection in diffusion: A training-free approach for adapting large-scale diffusion models for style transfer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 8795–8805

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Helisa Dhamo, Yinyu Nie, Arthur Moreau, Jifei Song, Richard Shaw, Yiren Zhou, and Eduardo Pérez-Pellitero. 2025. Headgas: Real-time animatable head avatars via 3d gaussian splatting. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 459–476

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. 2021. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Vol. 34. 8780–8794

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Ganggui Ding, Canyu Zhao, Wen Wang, Zhen Yang, Zide Liu, Hao Chen, and Chunhua Shen. 2024. FreeCustom: Tuning-Free Customized Image Generation for Multi-Concept Composition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 9089–9098

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Srinivasan, Jonathan T

    Ruiqi Gao, Aleksander Holynski, Philipp Henzler, Arthur Brussee, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Poole. 2024. CAT3D: Create Anything in 3D with Multi-View Diffusion Models. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2024). doi:10. 48550/ARXIV.2405.10314

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.10314 2024

  17. [17]

    Daniel Garibi, Or Patashnik, Andrey Voynov, Hadar Averbuch-Elor, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2024. Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising. In European Conference on Computer Vision(ECCV) . Springer, 395–413

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Daniel Geng, Inbum Park, and Andrew Owens. 2025. Factorized diffusion: Per- ceptual illusions by noise decomposition. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 366–384

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Balaji, and Ramesh Gopalan

    Dipayan Ghosh, Niranjan Mitra, Ravi Sundaram, Dinesh Sudhakar, Amol Kanji- rath, R. Balaji, and Ramesh Gopalan. 2015. F-score based similarity measure for point cloud registration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . 1053–1060

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Junlin Han, Filippos Kokkinos, and Philip Torr. 2024. VFusion3D: Learning Scalable 3D Generative Models from Video Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the The European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Alec Jacobson, Ilya Baran, Ladislav Kavan, Jovan Popović, and Olga Sorkine. 2012. Fast automatic skinning transformations. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 31, 4 (2012), 1–10

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    Jaeseok Jeong, Junho Kim, Yunjey Choi, Gayoung Lee, and Youngjung Uh. 2024. Visual Style Prompting with Swapping Self-Attention. arXiv:2402.12974 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Shuhui Jiang, Jun Li, and Yun Fu. 2021. Deep Learning for Fashion Style Gener- ation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 32, 9 (2021), 3825–3837. doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3057892

    work page arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Yanqin Jiang, Chaohui Yu, Chenjie Cao, Fan Wang, Weiming Hu, and Jin Gao

    work page

  25. [25]

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. 2022. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models.Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 26565–26577

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    Zhe Kong, Yong Zhang, Tianyu Yang, Tao Wang, Kaihao Zhang, Bizhu Wu, Guanying Chen, Wei Liu, and Wenhan Luo. 2025. Omg: Occlusion-friendly per- sonalized multi-concept generation in diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 253–270

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Gihyun Kwon, Simon Jenni, Dingzeyu Li, Joon-Young Lee, Jong Chul Ye, and Fabian Caba Heilbron. 2024. Concept Weaver: Enabling Multi-Concept Fusion in Text-to-Image Models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 8880–8889

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Jun Li, Zedong Zhang, and Jian Yang. 2024. TP2O: Creative Text Pair-to-Object Generation using Balance Swap-Sampling. In Proceedings of the European Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Peng Li, Yuan Liu, Xiaoxiao Long, Feihu Zhang, Cheng Lin, Mengfei Li, Xingqun Qi, Shanghang Zhang, Wenhan Luo, Ping Tan, et al. 2024. Era3D: High-Resolution Multiview Diffusion using Efficient Row-wise Attention. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Weiyu Li, Xuelin Chen, Jue Wang, and Baoquan Chen. 2023. Patch-based 3D Natural Scene Generation from a Single Example. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 16762–16772

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Jun Hao Liew, Hanshu Yan, Daquan Zhou, and Jiashi Feng. 2022. Magicmix: Semantic mixing with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.16056 (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Fangfu Liu, Diankun Wu, Yi Wei, Yongming Rao, and Yueqi Duan. 2024. Sherpa3D: Boosting High-Fidelity Text-to-3D Generation via Coarse 3D Prior. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 20763–20774

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan-Chen Guo, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Zhiyang Dou, Lingjie Liu, Yuexin Ma, Song-Hai Zhang, Marc Habermann, Christian Theobalt, et al. 2024. Wonder3D: Single Image to 3D using Cross-Domain Diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 9970–9980

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Jiachen Lu, Ze Huang, Zeyu Yang, Jiahui Zhang, and Li Zhang. 2025. Wovo- gen: World volume-aware diffusion for controllable multi-camera driving scene generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 329–345

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue. https: //www.openai.com Accessed: 2023-05-07

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy Vo, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, Mahmoud Assran, Nicolas Ballas, Wojciech Galuba, Russell Howes, Po-Yao Huang, Shang-Wen Li, Ishan Misra, Michael Rabbat, Vasu Sharma, Gabriel Synnaeve, Hu Xu, Hervé Jegou, Julien Mairal, Patrick Lab...

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Gaurav Parmar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Richard Zhang, Yijun Li, Jingwan Lu, and Jun-Yan Zhu. 2023. Zero-shot Image-to-Image Translation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH. 1–11

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models from Natural Language Supervision. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Amit Raj, Srinivas Kaza, Ben Poole, Michael Niemeyer, Nataniel Ruiz, Ben Milden- hall, Shiran Zada, Kfir Aberman, Michael Rubinstein, Jonathan Barron, et al

    work page

  40. [40]

    Elad Richardson, Kfir Goldberg, Yuval Alaluf, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2024. Con- ceptLab: Creative Concept Generation using VLM-Guided Diffusion Prior Con- straints. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 43, 2 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. 2023. 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 (CVPR) . 22500–22510

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Axel Sauer, Dominik Lorenz, Andreas Blattmann, and Robin Rombach. 2024. Ad- versarial diffusion distillation. InProceedings of the European Conference Computer Vision (ECCV)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Christoph Schuhmann. 2022. aesthetic-predictor. https://github.com/LAION- AI/aesthetic-predictor. https://github.com/LAION-AI/aesthetic-predictor

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Maria Sokolova and Guy Lapalme. 2006. Beyond Accuracy, F-Score and ROC: A Family of Discriminant Measures for Performance Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) . 1015–1022. 9

    work page 2006

  45. [45]

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. 2020. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Olga Sorkine. 2005. Laplacian mesh processing. Eurographics (State of the Art Reports) 4, 4 (2005), 1

    work page 2005

  47. [47]

    Olga Sorkine and Marc Alexa. 2007. As-rigid-as-possible surface modeling. In Symposium on Geometry processing , Vol. 4. Citeseer, 109–116

    work page 2007

  48. [48]

    Robert W Sumner, Matthias Zwicker, Craig Gotsman, and Jovan Popović. 2005. Mesh-based inverse kinematics. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) 24, 3 (2005), 488–495

    work page 2005

  49. [49]

    Jiaxiang Tang, Zhaoxi Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Tengfei Wang, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu. 2024. LGM: Large Multi-View Gaussian Model for High-Resolution 3D Content Creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05054 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Shitao Tang, Jiacheng Chen, Dilin Wang, Chengzhou Tang, Fuyang Zhang, Yuchen Fan, Vikas Chandra, Yasutaka Furukawa, and Rakesh Ranjan. 2024. MVD- iffHD: A Dense High-resolution Multi-view Diffusion Model for Single or Sparse- view 3D Object Reconstruction. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Purva Tendulkar et al . 2023. FLEX: Full-Body Grasping Without Full-Body Grasps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 1422–1431

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Basile Van Hoorick et al . 2023. Tracking Through Containers and Occluders in the Wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 3995–4004

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Renke Wang, Guimin Que, Shuo Chen, Xiang Li, Jun Li, and Jian Yang. 2023. Creative Birds: Self-Supervised Single-View 3D Style Transfer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . 8775–8784

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    Zhenwei Wang, Tengfei Wang, Gerhard Hancke, Ziwei Liu, and Rynson W.H. Lau

    work page

  55. [55]

    Zhenwei Wang, Tengfei Wang, Zexin He, Gerhard Hancke, Ziwei Liu, and Ryn- son W.H. Lau. 2025. Phidias: A Generative Model for Creating 3D Content from Text, Image, and 3D Conditions with Reference-Augmented Diffusion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Zhengyi Wang, Yikai Wang, Yifei Chen, Chendong Xiang, Shuo Chen, Dajiang Yu, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. 2024. Crm: Single image to 3d textured mesh with convolutional reconstruction model. In Proceedings of the European Conference Computer Vision (ECCV)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH

    ThemeStation: Generating Theme-Aware 3D Assets from Few Exemplars. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH

    work page

  58. [58]

    Rundi Wu, Ruoshi Liu, Carl Vondrick, and Changxi Zheng. 2023. Sin3dm: Learning a diffusion model from a single 3d textured shape. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15399 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Xiaoshi Wu, Yiming Hao, Keqiang Sun, Yixiong Chen, Feng Zhu, Rui Zhao, and Hongsheng Li. 2023. Human Preference Score v2: A Solid Benchmark for Evaluating Human Preferences of Text-to-Image Synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09341 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Bin-Shih Wu, Hong-En Chen, Sheng-Yu Huang, and Yu-Chiang Frank Wang

    work page

  61. [61]

    Jianfeng Xiang, Zelong Lv, Sicheng Xu, Yu Deng, Ruicheng Wang, Bowen Zhang, Dong Chen, Xin Tong, and Jiaolong Yang. 2025. Structured 3d latents for scalable and versatile 3d generation. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR). 21469–21480

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    Zeren Xiong, Zedong Zhang, Zikun Chen, Shuo Chen, Xiang Li, Gan Sun, Jian Yang, and Jun Li. 2024. Novel Object Synthesis via Adaptive Text-Image Harmony. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Jinchao Yang, Fei Guo, Shuo Chen, Jun Li, and Jian Yang. 2022. Industrial style transfer with large-scale geometric warping and content preservation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 7834–7843

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Bin Xia, Shiyin Wang, Yingfan Tao, Yitong Wang, and Jiaya Jia. 2025. Llmga: Mul- timodal large language model based generation assistant. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 389–406

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    Xianghui Yang, Huiwen Shi, Bowen Zhang, Fan Yang, Jiacheng Wang, Hongxu Zhao, Xinhai Liu, Xinzhou Wang, Qingxiang Lin, Jiaao Yu, et al. 2024. Hunyuan3D 1.0: A Unified Framework for Text-to-3D and Image-to-3D Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02293 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Wang Yifan, Noam Aigerman, Vladimir G Kim, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, and Olga Sorkine-Hornung. 2020. Neural cages for detail-preserving 3d deformations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 75–83

    work page 2020

  67. [67]

    Yu-Jie Yuan, Yu-Kun Lai, Tong Wu, Lin Gao, and Ligang Liu. 2021. A revisit of shape editing techniques: From the geometric to the neural viewpoint. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 36, 3 (2021), 520–554

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    Yang et al

    X. Yang et al. 2023. Object Pop-Up: Can We Infer 3D Objects and Their Poses From Human Interactions Alone?. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 1832–1842

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Hongyu Zhou, Jiahao Shao, Lu Xu, Dongfeng Bai, Weichao Qiu, Bingbing Liu, Yue Wang, Andreas Geiger, and Yiyi Liao. 2024. HUGS: Holistic Urban 3D Scene Understanding via Gaussian Splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 21336–21345

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    HeadStudio: Text to Animatable Head Avatars with 3D Gaussian Splatting

    Zhenglin Zhou, Fan Ma, Hehe Fan, and Yi Yang. 2024. Headstudio: Text to ani- matable head avatars with 3d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06149 (2024). 10 The supplementary materials provide a detailed analysis of the experimental setup, results, and user studies, further validating the effectiveness and innovation of our method. Section A o...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [72]

    Xiao Zhang, Zhi Zhang, Wenqi Zhang, Lei Zhang, Yun Li, Jiang Wu, and Zhiqiang Zhao. 2023. MVFusion: Multi-View 3D Object Detection with Semantic-aligned Radar and Camera Fusion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    work page 2023

  72. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    Dreambooth3D: Subject-driven text-to-3D generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . 2349–2359

    work page

  73. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    Animate3D: Animating Any 3D Model with Multi-view Video Diffusion. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    work page

  74. [2025]

    In European Conference on Computer Vision

    TPA3D: Triplane Attention for Fast Text-to-3D Generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 438–455

    work page

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