Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Scalable feedforward 3D editing is learned from semantic-part transformations, via a 102K-pair dataset and a feedforward editor that needs no mask at test time.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 12:57 UTC pith:LCAE4DUW

load-bearing objection A solid dataset-plus-model contribution with a genuine evaluation caveat: the main benchmark shares its generator with the training data, so the headline SOTA numbers need an independent appearance-edit benchmark before they fully convince. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.27351 v5 pith:LCAE4DUW submitted 2026-05-26 cs.CV

Feedforward 3D Editing Learns from Semantic-Part Transformation

Jiawei Weng , Saining Zhang , Zhenxin Diao , Peishuo Li , Henghaofan Zhang , Junhao Chen , Hao Zhao This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3D editingfeedforward editingsemantic part transformationpaired datasetflow matchingsource-latent controlmask-aware preservationrender-space consistency
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 paper argues that the reason 3D editing has not yet made the leap to large-scale feedforward models is the absence of good paired supervision, and that the right supervision is a before/after pair defined by a transformation of a semantic 3D part. It builds Pxform, with 102,007 training pairs and 1,497 test pairs from over 11,000 meshes spanning seven edit types, using a pipeline that grounds each edit in a named part, generates an instruction, and verifies the result with multi-view checks. On that data it trains PartFlow, a feedforward model that injects the source asset's compressed representation into a pretrained 3D flow backbone, uses edit masks only during training to keep unedited regions unchanged, and adds a render-space loss that aligns the output with the target view. PartFlow reports the best numbers on the authors' benchmark for both shape and appearance edits, without needing a 3D mask at inference. If this holds, it closes the data gap that has kept 3D editing in the training-free regime and gives a recipe for scaling editors to general-purpose use.

Core claim

The central claim is that consistent, semantically grounded paired data is the missing ingredient for feedforward 3D editing, and that grounding edits in semantic parts is what makes the pairs consistent. The paper's own statement is that high-quality semantic-part supervision substantially improves scalable 3D editing. Concretely, Pxform's after states are produced by editing a selected 3D part while everything outside the part mask is carried over, yielding sharp boundaries and strong preservation that image-mediated datasets lack. PartFlow then learns from these pairs: a trainable source-latent branch lets the pretrained backbone keep source identity; a mask-aware velocity preservation lo

What carries the argument

Semantic-part transformation is the central unit: each edit is anchored to a concrete 3D part or grouped set of parts with a semantic label, and the before/after pair is required to leave everything outside that part unchanged. This is what Pxform is made of and what makes the supervision localizable. PartFlow's machinery is a source-latent conditioning branch added to a pretrained two-stage 3D flow model: the branch injects the source asset's compressed representation so the backbone edits rather than regenerates, and two auxiliary losses carry the preservation argument. Mask-aware velocity preservation compares the predicted flow velocity against the source velocity in unedited regions, us

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every Pxform 'after' mesh is true ground truth — specifically, that the latent-inversion-and-inpainting step changes only the targeted part, and that the vision-language verification gates correctly accept only edits that were executed well and preserved everything else; if either fails, the training targets and the benchmark share the same errors and PartFlow's measured gains partly measure similarity to the generator, not editing quality.

What would settle it

On a random sample of Pxform pairs, measure the difference between before and after strictly outside the selected part mask, for example Chamfer distance and mean color change on the preserved region. Substantial outside-mask drift would falsify the dataset's preservation guarantee. In addition, run a human rater study on a subset of accepted pairs asking whether the edit was executed, localized to the right part, and free of artifacts; if human agreement with the pipeline's gate is low, the gate is too lenient and the reported benchmark improvements are inflated.

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

If this is right

  • Deployment becomes a single feedforward pass: an editor that obeys an instruction and preserves the source asset without requiring the user to supply a 3D region mask.
  • One training recipe now covers both geometry edits (add, delete, replace, scale) and appearance edits (color, material, style) from the same paired data, rather than separate pipelines.
  • The mask-aware velocity preservation loss gives a transferable mechanism for keeping unedited regions stable in any flow-based 3D generative model.
  • Pxform's test split provides a ready benchmark for reporting before/after consistency, edit locality, and preservation, not just visual similarity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if part-grounded pairs are the real driver, the same recipe should scale to unannotated 3D collections by adding an automatic part-segmentation step, potentially multiplying dataset size well beyond 100K.
  • Beyond the paper: the benchmark's ground truth is generated by the same pipeline that produced the training pairs, so PartFlow's gains could partly reflect reproducing the pipeline's inversion behavior; a human-preference study or an independently re-rendered ground truth would test whether the gains represent editing quality.
  • Beyond the paper: the appearance edits sidestep physically based material parameters; extending part-grounded pairing to PBR attributes would test whether the method transfers to production material editing, which the paper lists as future work.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Pxform, a large paired 3D editing dataset of 102,007 training and 1,497 test pairs covering seven edit types (addition, deletion, local replacement, local scaling, local color, local material, global style), constructed by grounding edits in semantic 3D parts and transferring 2D edit references back to 3D via RF-Solver inversion and part-mask-guided TRELLIS inpainting. It then proposes PartFlow, a ControlNet-style feedforward editor on the TRELLIS backbone, with mask-aware velocity preservation and render-space consistency losses. The paper claims state-of-the-art performance on the authors' Uni3DEdit-Bench (shape and appearance splits) and on the external Edit3D-Bench add/remove tasks. The internal architecture and objective are coherent, and the external add/remove results provide partial independent evidence; however, the main benchmark is derived from the same data-generation pipeline that produced the training targets, and the global-style edit type is not evaluated, so the central SOTA claim is not fully supported as stated.

Significance. If the claims are established, the paper would make a useful contribution: a semantically grounded 3D editing dataset with explicit part-level localization, a feedforward editing architecture that does not require a 3D mask at inference, and a two-stage supervision scheme that is clearly described (Eqs. 2-7). The ablation in Table 3 shows that the mask-aware velocity preservation loss is important, and Table 5 offers external evidence on add/remove geometry, which is a strength. The significance is currently tempered by the closed-loop evaluation design: Uni3DEdit-Bench is carved from the Pxform test split, whose ground-truth after-states are generated by the same pipeline that produced PartFlow's training targets, and the benchmark omits the paper's headline global-style edit type. Independent human or external evaluation on appearance edits would materially raise confidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, §3.2, Tables 2 and 4] The SOTA claim rests on Uni3DEdit-Bench, described in §5.1 as a manually curated subset of the Pxform test split. The after-states in that test split are produced by the §3.2 pipeline: RF-Solver inversion, TRELLIS part-mask-guided inpainting, and Qwen-3.5 quality gates. PartFlow is a ControlNet-style adapter on the same TRELLIS flow backbone, trained on those same after-latents. Thus the benchmark measures similarity to the outputs of the very generator that defines both training targets and test ground truth. The large CD improvement over Nano3D in Table 2 (11.80 → 5.09) may partly reflect distributional match to TRELLIS outputs rather than independently verified editing quality. Table 5 is genuinely external but only covers add/remove geometry; it does not validate the color, material, or style edits. Please add (i) human or independent-judge evaluation on all edit types, and (ii) a de
  2. [§3.1, §5.1, §5.3] Global style transformation is listed as one of Pxform's seven edit types in §3.1 and is repeated in the abstract and conclusion, but no benchmark or experiment evaluates it. §5.1 defines the shape split (1,265 samples: deletion, addition, replacement, scaling) and the appearance split (232 samples: color, material). No style samples appear in Tables 2-4, and Table 5 covers only add/remove. Therefore a stated component of the central claim (“seven edit types” and “global style transformation”) is untested. Either add a global-style evaluation split and results, or remove style from the headline claims.
  3. [§3.2, §5.2, Tables 2 and 4] The automated quality gates (Qwen-3.5) are used during Pxform construction to accept or reject after-states. Because the benchmark ground truth is drawn from this same Pxform test split, any leniency or systematic bias of the gates (e.g., accepting edits that do not actually execute the instruction, or accepting geometry drift in the preserved regions) is shared by the training targets and the evaluation references. Moreover, all reported metrics compare against the generated after-renderings: CD, NC, F1, PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS, and DINO-I do not verify whether the requested semantic operation was performed. On appearance edits, a model that preserves the source and ignores the instruction could still score well on PSNR/SSIM, and a model that reproduces TRELLIS-specific artifacts could score well on CD/LPIPS. Please add an independent instruction-alignment metric (human rating or a VLM not us
minor comments (4)
  1. [§A.1] The loss weights λ_SS_mask, λ_SLat_mask, and λ_render are not specified; the appendix only gives training steps and batch size. These are needed for reproducibility, especially because the mask-loss ablation in Table 3 is highly sensitive.
  2. [§5.3] Minor wording: “Table 2 reports quantitative results the shape-edit split” is missing “on”.
  3. [Table 1] Pxform is marked ✓ for Style coverage in Table 1, but the experimental section contains no style evaluation. This inconsistency should at least be noted in the table caption or text.
  4. [Various] The project page is mentioned but no release repository or dataset download link is given. Since the paper's contribution is a dataset and a model, a concrete release plan is important for verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: benchmark co-derived with training data is an evaluation-validity concern, not a derivation cycle.

full rationale

Under the strict definition of circularity used here—a claimed result reducing by equation or by a fitted parameter to its own inputs—this paper is not circular. PartFlow's losses (Eqs. 2, 3, 5-7) are standard flow-matching plus auxiliary preservation/render terms; no equation defines the predicted edited latent or rendered image as the ground-truth target by construction. The closest concern is evaluative: Uni3DEdit-Bench is 'a manually curated benchmark built from the Pxform test split' (Sec. 5.1), and Pxform's after-states are generated in-house via 'RF-Solver-based latent inversion and part-mask-guided TRELLIS inpainting' (Sec. 3.2), so appearance-edit metrics partly measure distributional match to the same generator that produced training targets. This is a benchmark-validity/generalization confound, not a circular derivation: the test split is held out, no test after-state is used in training, the benchmark is described as manually curated, and PartFlow must still map unseen instructions and source assets to outputs. External Edit3D-Bench (Table 5) independently supports geometry add/remove. The limitations in A.4 concern PBR materials and static-only editing; global-style edits are absent from the benchmark splits—both are coverage gaps, not circular steps. Hence score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the data engine's ability to create trustworthy “after” states and on PartFlow's reliance on a pretrained TRELLIS prior; neither is externally verified. Loss weights and several dataset cutoffs are hand-set. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Loss weights λ_mask, λ_render, λ_mse, λ_ds
    Values are not reported anywhere; they are hand-chosen weights in Eqs. 5-7 and the central balance between preservation and edit fidelity depends on them.
  • Scale edit factor range = 0.3–0.85
    Appendix B.1 constrains scale edits to a preselected factor interval, shaping the dataset's geometry-edit distribution by hand.
  • Part-count filtering threshold = ≤16 parts
    Section 3.2 retains only objects with no more than 16 parts; this hand-set cutoff determines Pxform's coverage and is not justified by a data-based criterion.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Flow-matching objective and TRELLIS latent codec are valid and invertible enough for edit supervision
    PartFlow inherits the pretrained TRELLIS prior; if latent inversion/decoding is lossy, the velocity targets are misaligned with actual mesh quality.
  • domain assumption RF-Solver inversion plus part-mask-guided TRELLIS inpainting preserves regions outside the mask
    Pxform's “after” ground truth is generated by this transfer; if source-preservation fails, every pair and the benchmark inherit the error.
  • domain assumption LLM/VLM judgments (Qwen-3.5 for alignment and quality gates) are reliable proxies for edit correctness and preservation
    No human verification is reported; the dataset quality and benchmark labels rest on automated gates described in Section 3.2 and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption Part-segmented assets from PartVerse/PartObjaverse-Tiny have semantically correct part labels adequate for edit grounding
    The whole semantic-part transformation premise depends on input part segmentation being accurate; errors propagate into target selection and masks.
  • ad hoc to paper FLUX.2-Klein produces 2D edit references that are 3D-consistent enough to serve as edit conditions
    The 2D→3D transfer step depends on this specific image editor; its failure modes are absorbed by filtering but not measured.
  • standard math Standard flow-matching math and Gaussian rendering
    Equations 1-5 use standard background results; no issue.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23360 in / 15110 out tokens · 146433 ms · 2026-08-02T12:57:44.724008+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

3D editing is a fundamental capability for scalable 3D content creation. While image editing has rapidly evolved toward large-scale feedforward generative paradigms, 3D AI generation remains dominated by training-free editing pipelines. A central challenge of feedforward 3D editing lies in the lack of high-quality paired supervision. Editable 3D assets require simultaneous preservation of geometry, multi-view consistency, structural coherence, and localized edit controllability. Existing 3D editing datasets often rely on independently generated assets, image-mediated reconstruction or narrow edit taxonomies, leading to inaccurate localization, weak preservation, blurred edit boundaries, and limited semantic consistency. In this work, we introduce a new perspective: scalable feedforward 3D editing should be learned from semantic-part transformations. Based on this insight, we propose Pxform, a high-quality 3D editing dataset with over 100K consistent before/after editing pairs across seven edit types. Instead of treating objects as unstructured shapes, our pipeline grounds edits directly in semantic 3D parts. Built upon Pxform, we further propose PartFlow, a feedforward 3D editing network that injects source-aware latent control into pretrained 3D generative priors. PartFlow introduces mask-aware velocity preservation and render-space consistency supervision to jointly improve edit fidelity and source preservation, while requiring no 3D edit mask during inference. Extensive experiments demonstrate that high-quality semantic-part supervision substantially improves scalable 3D editing, enabling PartFlow to achieve state-of-the-art performance on both geometric and appearance editing benchmarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27351 by Hao Zhao, Henghaofan Zhang, Jiawei Weng, Junhao Chen, Peishuo Li, Saining Zhang, Zhenxin Diao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We introduce Pxform, a high-quality holistic 3D editing dataset with over 100K consistent before/after pairs, covering seven edit types: addition, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Qualitative comparison of editing pairs from Pxform, 3DEditVerse [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of the modular Pxform data construction pipeline. Starting from part-segmented 3D assets, the pipeline first refines semantic part labels and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of PartFlow. PartFlow introduces ControlNet-style source-latent injection into the two-stage TRELLIS editing process: Stage 1 controls [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench for shape editing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench for appearance editing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Some data from Pxform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparison of Pxform, 3DEditVerse and Nano3D-Edit100k. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of Pxform, 3DEditVerse and Nano3D-Edit100k. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of Pxform, 3DEditVerse and Nano3D-Edit100k. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: More Samples in Pxform Dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Qualitative results on Uni3DEdit-Bench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_22.png] view at source ↗

Review history (4 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. One Video, One World: Turning Monocular Video into Physical 4D Scenes

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    OVOW reconstructs instance-level, simulation-ready 4D mesh scenes from monocular video via a four-stage training-free pipeline and introduces a new benchmark for structured Video-to-4D evaluation.

  2. Video Models as Native 4D Renderers: World-Grounded Conditioning from Animated Mesh

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Conditioning a video diffusion model on animated-mesh G-buffer maps (tracking + world position + normals) improves camera-and-object control over depth conditioning in the authors' 68-video benchmark.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Generate exactly the requested number of edits according to the quota

  2. [2]

    Select valid target parts from the supplied part list

  3. [3]

    Group repeated instances into one edit when they form a semantic unit, e.g., both wheels or all chair legs

  4. [4]

    Group semantically coupled components when appropriate, e.g., eyes, nose, and mouth as a head-level edit

  5. [5]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Wonder3D: Single Image to 3D using Cross-Domain Diffusion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Changfeng Ma, Yang Li, Xinhao Yan, Jiachen Xu, Yunhan Yang, Chunshi Wang, Zibo Zhao, Yanwen Guo, Zhuo Chen, and Chunchao Guo. 2025b. P3-SAM: Native 3D 10•Weng et al. Part Segmentation. arXiv:2509.06784 [cs.CV] doi...

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.06784 2025

  6. [6]

    arXiv:2512.14692 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14692 Jianfeng Xiang, Zelong Lv, Sicheng Xu, Yu Deng, Ruicheng Wang, Bowen Zhang, Dong Chen, Xin Tong, and Jiaolong Yang

    Native and Compact Structured Latents for 3D Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14692(2025). arXiv:2512.14692 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14692 Jianfeng Xiang, Zelong Lv, Sicheng Xu, Yu Deng, Ruicheng Wang, Bowen Zhang, Dong Chen, Xin Tong, and Jiaolong Yang. 2024. Structured 3D Latents for Scalable and Versatile 3D Generation.arXiv preprint arXi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    new_part_desc

    Produce target descriptions and after-edit descriptions suitable for downstream editing and verification. Rules: R1. selected_part_ids must be a subset of the input part list. R2. No two edits may share the same (edit_type, selected_part_ids) pair. R3. Global edits must use selected_part_ids = []. R4. Deletion cannot target the primary structural body. R5...

  8. [11]

    Avoid deleting the primary structural body of the object

  9. [12]

    Use clear English imperative edit instructions

  10. [2023]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Objaverse: A Universe of Annotated 3D Objects. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 13142–13153. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08051 Shaocong Dong, Lihe Ding, Xiao Chen, Yaokun Li, Yuxin Wang, Yucheng Wang, Qi Wang, Jaehyeok Kim, Chenjian Gao, Zhanpeng Huang, Zibin Wang, Tianfan Xue, and Dan Xu. 2025. From One ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08629(2024)

    FlowEdit: Inversion-Free Text-Based Editing Using Pre-Trained Flow Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08629(2024). arXiv:2412.08629 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2412.08629 Zeqiang Lai, Yunfei Zhao, Zibo Zhao, Haolin Liu, Qingxiang Lin, Jingwei Huang, Chunchao Guo, and Xiangyu Yue. 2025. LATTICE: Democratize High-Fidelity 3D Generation at Scale.arXiv prep...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [2025]

    arXiv:2512.21185 [cs.CV] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.21185 Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol

    UltraShape 1.0: High-Fidelity 3D Shape Generation via Scalable Geometric Refinement.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21185(2025). arXiv:2512.21185 [cs.CV] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.21185 Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. 2023. Shap-E: Generating Conditional 3D Implicit Functions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463(2023). Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühl...

    arXiv 2025

  13. [9795]

    Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa

    https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_ICCV_2019/html/Gkioxari_Mesh_R- CNN_ICCV_2019_paper.html Ayaan Haque, Matthew Tancik, Alexei A. Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. 2023. Instruct-NeRF2NeRF: Editing 3D Scenes with Instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. Zexin He and Tengfei Wang. 2023. Op...

    arXiv 2023