Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that generating mesh vertices and connectivity in two separate flow stages, anchored to a shared coarse scaffold, beats joint-latent generation and unlocks part-wise scaling and topology-adaptive editing.

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 07:11 UTC pith:YWSPEGEM

load-bearing objection LATO.2 is a genuinely useful factorized mesh-generation recipe, but the central claim that factorization explains the gains is underdetermined without a matched joint-latent ablation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10623 v2 pith:YWSPEGEM submitted 2026-07-12 cs.GR cs.CV

LATO.2: Factorized 3D Mesh Generation with Vertex and Topology Flow

Hang Long , Tianhao Zhao , Junkai Lin , Youjia Zhang , Huipeng Guo , Rendong Liang , Jiale Xu , Jozef Hladk\'y
show 3 more authors
Matthias Nie{\ss}ner Yuanming Hu Wei Yang
This is my paper
classification cs.GR cs.CV
keywords 3D mesh generationflow matchingmesh topologyvertex-conditioned generationlatent diffusionpart-wise generationtopology-adaptive editingsparse voxel scaffold
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.

LATO.2 tries to establish that the reason prior flow-based mesh generators produce broken surfaces is that they encode vertex geometry and discrete connectivity together in one latent space, forcing a single flow to model two statistically dissimilar signals at once. The paper proposes a factorization: a vertex flow generates high-resolution vertex positions from a coarse voxel scaffold, then a topology flow, conditioned on those realized vertices, samples connectivity as per-vertex features decoded into edge probabilities. The claim is that each stage now models a homogeneous distribution, easing learning, and that the factorization makes topology adaptive to any vertex-level change, enabling controllable resolution, part-wise generation at full latent capacity, and editing where moving vertices automatically regenerates valid connectivity. If correct, this offers a practical recipe for explicit, production-oriented mesh generation without long autoregressive token streams.

Core claim

The central claim is that the discreteness of mesh connectivity is an artifact of modeling it jointly with geometry: conditioned on realized vertices, connectivity reduces to relations among known points in space and can be represented as continuous per-vertex features that decode into pairwise edge probabilities. The paper builds two autoencoders—a vertex VAE that recovers vertices at sub-voxel precision using a per-vertex drift vector, and a topology VAE that learns a per-vertex latent from adjacency-masked attention—and trains two flow matching models over these latents, with a shared coarse voxel scaffold anchoring both stages. Quantitatively, the full pipeline reports lower Chamfer dist

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the factorization itself: a two-stage flow matching pipeline over two dedicated latent spaces, connected by a shared coarse voxel scaffold. The vertex stage (V-VAE + V-Flow) compresses vertex displacement fields into a sparse latent and decodes high-resolution vertices through coarse-to-fine subdivision, pruning, and a per-vertex drift vector that corrects quantization error; the topology stage (T-VAE + T-Flow) encodes connectivity as per-vertex latent features using adjacency-masked attention, and decodes edge probabilities with a pairwise MLP, with faces recovered by loop detection. The topology flow is conditioned on realized vertex positions and a coarse geometri

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the topology flow learns a conditional distribution that generalizes to vertex sets far outside those it trained on—specifically unions of parts, edited or rotated vertices, and stitched components—and that vertex-stage errors, which the paper states cannot be corrected during topology synthesis, remain small enough that the second stage can still recover valid connectivity.

What would settle it

Take a held-out mesh, rotate one part, stitch together vertex sets from two different meshes, or generate a part-wise result, then run the topology flow and measure topology validity directly (count non-manifold edges, self-intersections, and boundary gaps, and compare face counts against ground truth). If connectivity quality on these vertex sets degrades far below whole-mesh generation, the claimed unique advantages collapse even if Table 2's small metric gains hold.

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

If this is right

  • Vertex-count controllability: specifying a target vertex count steers mesh density while preserving shape, giving users direct control over resolution.
  • Part-wise generation: partitioning the coarse scaffold and generating each part at full latent capacity yields meshes with substantially more faces and finer detail than a monolithic latent permits.
  • Topology-adaptive editing: user edits, rotations, or stitching of vertex sets propagate to connectivity simply by re-running the topology flow, avoiding hand-crafted topology rules.
  • Error localization: the paper's ablations indicate the V-VAE reconstructs vertices near-perfectly and the main error comes from the generative flows, so improving the flow stages directly improves final mesh quality.
  • The paper argues that modeling connectivity as a sampled conditional distribution beats deterministic feed-forward edge completion, supporting the use of latent flow for topology.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to train the topology flow on vertex sets from external sources (scans or deformed meshes) to see whether connectivity prediction generalizes to geometry beyond the training distribution; the paper's editing results suggest it might, but no quantitative topology-validity metrics are reported for those cases.
  • Since the paper concedes that vertex-stage inaccuracies cannot be corrected during topology synthesis, the practical ceiling of the whole pipeline is set by vertex precision; improving vertex regression (e.g., continuous coordinate prediction instead of offset-from-voxel-center) could yield disproportionate gains.
  • The quadratic O(N^2) topology decoding will likely become the bottleneck at very high face counts; a hierarchical or blockwise topology flow would be a natural next step and could be evaluated against the current full-scoring decoder.
  • If the factorization's generalization holds, it could decouple geometry and connectivity research entirely: vertex generators and topology generators could be developed, trained, and swapped independently, sharing only a coarse scaffold.

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 LATO.2, a factorized flow-matching framework for explicit 3D mesh generation. The method splits generation into a vertex flow (V-Flow) that produces vertex positions from a coarse voxel scaffold and image/point-cloud conditions, and a topology flow (T-Flow) that generates per-vertex topology latents conditioned on the realized vertices, with a dedicated VAE for each stage. The paper claims state-of-the-art geometric fidelity and connectivity quality (Table 2), and claims two advantages unique to the factorization: part-wise high-resolution generation and topology-adaptive editing (§3.3). Experiments compare against autoregressive and latent-flow baselines, with ablations of the vertex branch (Table 4) and topology branch (Table 5).

Significance. If the central claim is validated, the factorized vertex-then-connectivity recipe is a meaningful contribution to explicit mesh generation, and the sub-voxel offset head is a clean, effective idea for improving vertex reconstruction. The paper is thorough in scope: it evaluates against eight baselines, provides ablations for both branches, reports reconstruction upper bounds, and releases code. However, the evidence for the factorized design's causal benefit is incomplete. The headline improvement over LATO is small (CD 0.0407 vs 0.0421, a 3% relative difference), the reported numbers have no error bars, and the two 'unique advantages' are only qualitatively demonstrated. The central claim is therefore plausible but not yet proven.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4, Table 2] The central claim that factorization itself drives the quality improvement is underdetermined. Table 2 compares complete systems that differ in VAE design, flow transformer, training data (including the 100K procedural meshes), vertex-count control, and inference procedure. The ablations in Tables 4–5 only remove components within the factorized design; no experiment removes the factorization while holding data, capacity, and backbone fixed. A matched joint-latent control — e.g., sampling [z_v; z_t] jointly with the same V-VAE/T-VAE latents, same flow transformer, and same training budget — is needed to attribute the gains to factorization rather than to the many concurrent engineering changes.
  2. [Table 3] The reported numbers are inconsistent with the expected error hierarchy and have no uncertainty estimates. GT-Verts + T-Flow (CD 0.0399) should upper-bound V-VAE + T-Flow (CD 0.0393), yet the reverse is observed. This inversion indicates noise at the 0.001–0.005 CD level, which is the same order as the headline margin over LATO (0.0421 vs 0.0407). The authors should report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds or runs and, ideally, significance tests, before claiming that the small differences in Table 2 are meaningful.
  3. [§3.3, Figs. 4–5] The two 'unique advantages' of the factorization — part-wise generation and topology-adaptive editing — are presented without quantitative validation. T-Flow is trained on whole-mesh vertex sets; the part-wise pipeline feeds it union-of-parts vertex sets rescaled to full latent volume, and the editing scenarios feed it rotated, stitched, or otherwise modified vertex sets. No topology-validity metrics (e.g., manifoldness, face/edge validity, self-intersection counts, genus accuracy) are reported for these applications. Given the paper's own limitation that 'geometric inaccuracies from the vertex stage cannot be corrected during topology synthesis,' these generalization claims need direct evidence rather than qualitative figures.
  4. [§4.1, Table 2] The claim of superior 'connectivity quality' is not directly supported by the metrics used. The only topology-related metric in Table 2 is |NC|, Normal Consistency, which measures geometric surface orientation, not topological validity. For a paper whose core contribution is topology modeling, the evaluation should include quantitative measures of mesh validity — e.g., fraction of valid faces, edge manifoldness, vertex valence distributions, or genus/connectivity accuracy. Without such metrics, the 'connectivity quality' component of the headline claim remains unsubstantiated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The text says 'loss weights are omitted for clarity'; these weights should be specified in the appendix or supplementary material, as they affect the VAE training balance.
  2. [Abstract/Contributions] The first contribution bullet has a trailing comma after 'scaffold,'. Please proofread.
  3. [§3.1] There is a typo: 'the vertice positions' should be 'the vertex positions'. Also, the loop-detection process that recovers faces from predicted edges is not described or referenced; this is an important implementation detail for reproducibility.
  4. [References] Reference formatting issue: 'V oleti' should be 'Voleti' in the SV3D and Objaverse-XL entries.
  5. [Table 4] The row 'w/o Train on Synthetic Mesh' reports ACC/F1/Recall/IOU that are substantially lower than the full model, while the 'w/o Offset Head' row shows identical occupancy metrics to the full model. This is plausible, but the caption could state explicitly that the offset head is intended to affect only sub-voxel localization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the two-stage flow derivation is self-contained; citations to LATO supply component reuse, not the load-bearing result.

full rationale

No circular derivation is present. The construction is a standard sequence of independently trained stages: V-VAE reconstruction with pruning, offset, and KL losses (Eqs. 2–3); T-VAE reconstruction with masked attention and a pairwise edge classifier (Eqs. 4–7); V-Flow rectified-flow training (Eq. 8); and T-Flow rectified-flow training (Eq. 9). Each objective is supervised by ground-truth vertex positions or adjacency and evaluated on held-out data (Tables 1–3), so the predictions are not encoded in the inputs by construction. The self-citations to LATO provide the VDF representation, the sparse VAE skeleton, and the pairwise edge-prediction MLP (Eq. 6), but these are inherited architectural components rather than the paper's central claim. The claim that factorization improves over joint-latent modeling is supported by comparisons to prior published systems, including LATO itself via official checkpoints, and the repository is public, making the comparison externally falsifiable. The absence of a matched joint-latent ablation is a genuine experimental confound for the causal attribution of Table 2 gains, but underdetermination is not the same as equivalence-by-construction. The paper's own limitation statement — that geometric inaccuracies from the vertex stage cannot be corrected during topology synthesis — further confirms that the two stages are not secretly the same quantity. Minor self-citations exist but are not load-bearing, so the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 2 invented entities

This is a deep-learning systems paper, so the ledger is dominated by inherited representation choices and hand-set hyperparameters rather than fitted physical constants. The central components (VDF encoding, V-VAE sparse refinement, pairwise-edge decoding, flow matching) are taken from the authors' own prior work (LATO) and from TRELLIS; each is listed as a domain assumption with its internal support. The two genuine additions — the sub-voxel drift vector and the per-vertex topology latent — are learned devices with no independent external handle; their only evidence is internal ablation. The free parameters are hyperparameters the paper does not report or ablate. The largest unstated load falls on T-Flow's generalization to out-of-distribution vertex sets (part unions, edits), tested only qualitatively.

free parameters (4)
  • V-VAE loss weights = omitted
    Eq. 3 combines pruning, offset, and KL terms but the weights are not disclosed ('loss weights are omitted for clarity'), so the exact training objective is unreported.
  • topology latent dimension d_z = 16
    Hand-chosen capacity for per-vertex connectivity encoding (§4.1); no sensitivity ablation reported.
  • coordinate quantization bins K for T-VAE/T-Flow = 1024
    Hand-chosen discretization of vertex coordinates for positional embeddings (§4.1); no ablation reported.
  • asymmetric focal loss hyperparameters = not stated
    Asymmetric focal loss used for occupancy pruning (Eq. 3) and edge prediction (Eq. 7); gamma/delta values are not given.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The Vertex Displacement Field (VDF) is a faithful continuous encoding of vertex geometry.
    V-VAE input/target representation adopted wholesale from LATO (Zhao et al., 2026) without independent verification in this paper (§3.1).
  • domain assumption Connectivity is reconstructible from per-vertex latent features decoded into pairwise edge probabilities plus loop detection.
    T-VAE/T-Flow design premise (§3.1); Fig. 7c claims 'perfect' reconstruction qualitatively; no manifold-validity statistics reported.
  • domain assumption Pairwise edge scoring over all N² pairs followed by loop detection yields valid closed meshes.
    Inference path of the topology branch (§3.2); loop-detection failure rates are never quantified.
  • standard math Rectified flow matching over Gaussian-corrupted structured latents learns the target distribution.
    Flow objectives Eqs. 8-9 follow the TRELLIS program (§3.2); standard in the cited literature.
  • domain assumption A random rendering of the mesh plus DINOv2 features is a sufficient task condition for geometry-conditioned generation.
    V-Flow conditioning (§3.2) trains on image-like renderings, yet evaluation uses point-cloud/voxel conditions — a domain gap not analyzed.
  • ad hoc to paper The procedural 100K synthetic primitive meshes improve coverage without harmful distribution shift.
    Introduced in §4.1; ablation shows removing them degrades occupancy metrics (Table 4), but the effect is only tested internally.
  • ad hoc to paper T-Flow generalizes to vertex sets produced by part-wise unions and user edits, despite training on whole-mesh vertex sets.
    Core premise of the two claimed advantages (§3.3); demonstrated only qualitatively (Figs. 4-5) with no quantitative topology-validity metrics.
invented entities (2)
  • sub-voxel drift vector δ_i per vertex no independent evidence
    purpose: Refines each decoded vertex from its voxel center to compensate finest-resolution quantization error (Eq. 2).
    New modeling device; internal ablation (Table 4) shows it improves CD/HD, but there is no external falsifiable handle outside this paper.
  • per-vertex topology latent z_t (dim 16) no independent evidence
    purpose: Continuous latent encoding of mesh connectivity that T-Flow samples conditioned on realized vertices (Eqs. 4-6).
    Learned representation with no external prediction attached; evidence of sufficiency is internal reconstruction quality only.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15789 in / 18987 out tokens · 180871 ms · 2026-08-02T07:11:28.059841+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Flow matching over carefully designed latent representations has recently emerged as a powerful paradigm for topology-aware mesh generation. Existing approaches, however, model vertices and connectivity jointly in a joint latent space, entangling continuous vertex geometry with discrete combinatorial structure; this complicates flow learning and manifests as drifting vertices and broken surfaces. We present LATO.2, a factorized flow matching framework that decomposes mesh generation into a vertex flow followed by a connectivity flow conditioned on the realized vertices, with both stages anchored to a shared coarse voxel scaffold. Dedicated VAEs underpin the two stages, recovering vertices at sub-voxel precision and embedding discrete connectivity into a continuous latent space. We demonstrate two advantages unique to this factorization: (i) part-wise generation, in which the scaffold is partitioned and each part synthesized at full latent capacity, yielding substantially higher-resolution meshes than a monolithic latent permits; and (ii) topology-adaptive editing, in which manipulating first-stage vertices induces the corresponding connectivity without re-optimization. Experiments show that LATO.2 surpasses state-of-the-art topology-aware mesh generators in geometric fidelity and connectivity quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10623 by Hang Long, Huipeng Guo, Jiale Xu, Jozef Hladk\'y, Junkai Lin, Matthias Nie{\ss}ner, Rendong Liang, Tianhao Zhao, Wei Yang, Youjia Zhang, Yuanming Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We present LATO.2, which factorizes mesh generation into a vertex flow (V-Flow) gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of LATO.2 pipeline. LATO.2 factorizes explicit mesh generation into vertex and topology synthesis. V-VAE learns sparse vertex latents and reconstructs high-resolution vertex positions with sub-voxel offsets, while T-VAE learns topology latents through vertex-aware atten￾tion. At inference, V-Flow generates vertices conditioned on images with controllable vertex counts, and T-Flow predicts connecti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Part-wise generation pipeline. A controllable structure planner (Yang et al., 2025) aug￾ments the sparse structure generated from the image or point cloud condition with part-level bound￾ing boxes. The resulting box-aware structure is encoded into part features and fused with image features via cross-attention between image tokens and part voxels. The structure decoder then pre￾dicts a part-aware sparse st… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Topology adaptive mesh editing. a) Mesh stitching: given the union of vertex sets cropped from different meshes, our T-Flow generates seamless connectivity across the junctions; newly synthesized faces are highlighted in red. b) Part transformation: naively rotating a part while keeping the original connectivity fixed causes face stretching and self-intersections (artifacts high￾lighted in red, left), wher… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Part-wise generation and refinement. The coarse structure is partitioned into parts, each rescaled to occupy the full latent volume and generated at full latent capacity, yielding substantially denser and more detailed meshes. As the number of parts increases, the face count grows accord￾ingly and finer geometric detail emerges. 4 EXPERIMENTS We evaluate LATO.2 from four perspectives: mesh reconstruction q… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison on geometry-conditioned mesh generation. Given point cloud or voxel conditions, baseline methods exhibit missing or broken surface regions, whereas our method produces complete shapes with more coherent topology. 4.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETTINGS Datasets. We train our model on a combination of datasets, including TRELLIS500K (Xiang et al., 2025), Objaverse (Deitke et al., 2023b), Objaverse-… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization on V-VAE and T-VAE reconstruction performances. a) Visualization of V-VAE vertex reconstruction. Gray vertices denote correctly reconstructed vertices, yellow vertices denote missing ground-truth vertices, and red vertices denote false positive predictions. b) Effect of the offset head on VAE reconstruction quality, significant less error presented with offset head. c) Topology reconstruction… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Generation gallery. Our method can generate various types of meshes with one pass generation. With multi-part generation, LATO.2 is capable of generating meshes with high face count and extreme fine details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Vertex number controlled generation. The explicit vertex number condition of V￾Flow enables controllable mesh resolution by specifying the target number of vertices. Given the same structure voxels, increasing the vertex budget from 0.2K to 4K produces progressively denser meshes with finer geometric details, while the topology flow automatically adapts connectivity to the generated vertex set and preserve… view at source ↗

Review history (2 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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Meshy T2: Fast Native Mesh Generation with Flow Matching

    cs.GR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Single-image native mesh generation runs at interactive speed in Meshy T2 by flow-matching one continuous latent per vertex, then decoding vertices, edge connectivity, and face winding in one pass.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Polydiff: Generating 3d polygonal meshes with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11417,

    Antonio Alliegro, Yawar Siddiqui, Tatiana Tommasi, and Matthias Nießner. Polydiff: Generating 3d polygonal meshes with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11417,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [4]

    Meshcraft: Exploring efficient and controllable mesh generation with flow- based dits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23022,

    Xianglong He, Junyi Chen, Di Huang, Zexiang Liu, Xiaoshui Huang, Wanli Ouyang, Chun Yuan, and Yangguang Li. Meshcraft: Exploring efficient and controllable mesh generation with flow- based dits.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23022,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [7]

    Quadgpt: Native quadrilateral mesh generation with autoregressive models

    Jian Liu, Chunshi Wang, Song Guo, Haohan Weng, Zhen Zhou, Zhiqi Li, Jiaao Yu, Yiling Zhu, Jing Xu, Biwen Lei, et al. Quadgpt: Native quadrilateral mesh generation with autoregressive models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.21420,

    arXiv

  4. [8]

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

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tokmakov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl V ondrick. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 9298–9309, 2023a. Yuan Liu, Cheng Lin, Zijiao Zeng, Xiaoxiao Long, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Syncdreamer: Generating m...

    2024

  5. [9]

    Meshdiffusion: Score-based generative 3d mesh modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08133, 2023b

    Zhen Liu, Yao Feng, Michael J Black, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Liam Paull, and Weiyang Liu. Meshdiffusion: Score-based generative 3d mesh modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08133, 2023b. Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan-Chen Guo, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Zhiyang Dou, Lingjie Liu, Yuexin Ma, Song-Hai Zhang, Marc Habermann, Christian Theobalt, et al. Wonder3d: Single image to 3...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [11]

    Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [12]

    Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988,

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [14]

    Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view diffusion base model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15110,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [16]

    Dmesh: A differentiable mesh representation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13445,

    Sanghyun Son, Matheus Gadelha, Yang Zhou, Zexiang Xu, Ming C Lin, and Yi Zhou. Dmesh: A differentiable mesh representation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13445,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [17]

    Mesh silksong: Auto-regressive mesh generation as weaving silk.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02477,

    Gaochao Song, Zibo Zhao, Haohan Weng, Jingbo Zeng, Rongfei Jia, and Shenghua Gao. Mesh silksong: Auto-regressive mesh generation as weaving silk.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02477,

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Edgerunner: Auto-regressive auto-encoder for artistic mesh generation

    Jiaxiang Tang, Max Li, Zekun Hao, Xian Liu, Gang Zeng, Ming-Yu Liu, and Qinsheng Zhang. Edgerunner: Auto-regressive auto-encoder for artistic mesh generation. InInternational Confer- ence on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pp. 35913–35934,

    2025

  12. [20]

    Imagedream: Image-prompt multi-view diffusion for 3d generation

    Peng Wang and Yichun Shi. Imagedream: Image-prompt multi-view diffusion for 3d generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02201,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [21]

    Llama-mesh: Unifying 3d mesh generation with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09595,

    Zhengyi Wang, Jonathan Lorraine, Yikai Wang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Sanja Fidler, and Xiaohui Zeng. Llama-mesh: Unifying 3d mesh generation with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09595,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [22]

    Pivotmesh: Generic 3d mesh generation via pivot vertices guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16890,

    Haohan Weng, Yikai Wang, Tong Zhang, CL Chen, and Jun Zhu. Pivotmesh: Generic 3d mesh generation via pivot vertices guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16890,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [23]

    Omnipart: Part-aware 3d generation with semantic decoupling and structural cohesion

    Yunhan Yang, Yufan Zhou, Yuan-Chen Guo, Zi-Xin Zou, Yukun Huang, Ying-Tian Liu, Hao Xu, Ding Liang, Yan-Pei Cao, and Xihui Liu. Omnipart: Part-aware 3d generation with semantic decoupling and structural cohesion. InProceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 Conference Papers, pp. 1–12,

    2025

  16. [24]

    Deepmesh: Auto-regressive artist-mesh creation with reinforcement learning

    Ruowen Zhao, Junliang Ye, Zhengyi Wang, Guangce Liu, Yiwen Chen, Yikai Wang, and Jun Zhu. Deepmesh: Auto-regressive artist-mesh creation with reinforcement learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 10612–10623, 2025a. Tianhao Zhao, Youjia Zhang, Hang Long, Jinshen Zhang, Wenbing Li, Yang Yang, Gongbo Zhang, J...

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hunyuan3d 2.0: Scaling diffusion models for high resolution textured 3d assets generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12202, 2025b

    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 diffusion models for high resolution textured 3d assets generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12202, 2025b. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [1999]

    Spacemesh: A continuous representation for learning manifold surface meshes

    Tianchang Shen, Zhaoshuo Li, Marc Law, Matan Atzmon, Sanja Fidler, James Lucas, Jun Gao, and Nicholas Sharp. Spacemesh: A continuous representation for learning manifold surface meshes. InSIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Conference Papers, pp. 1–11,

    2024

  19. [2020]

    Hierarchical transformers are more efficient language models

    Piotr Nawrot, Szymon Tworkowski, Michał Tyrolski, Łukasz Kaiser, Yuhuai Wu, Christian Szegedy, and Henryk Michalewski. Hierarchical transformers are more efficient language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pp. 1559–1571,

    2022

  20. [2021]

    Dreamgaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for efficient 3d content creation

    Jiaxiang Tang, Jiawei Ren, Hang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, and Gang Zeng. Dreamgaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for efficient 3d content creation. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pp. 33879–33896,

    2024

  21. [2022]

    Meshtron: High-fidelity, artist-like 3d mesh generation at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09548,

    Zekun Hao, David W Romero, Tsung-Yi Lin, and Ming-Yu Liu. Meshtron: High-fidelity, artist-like 3d mesh generation at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09548,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [2023]

    Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d generation

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Long Mai, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mvdream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d generation. InInternational conference on learning representations, volume 2024, pp. 39838–39859,

    2024

  23. [2024]

    Meshanything: Artist-created mesh generation with autoregres- sive transformers

    Yiwen Chen, Tong He, Di Huang, Weicai Ye, Sijin Chen, Jiaxiang Tang, Zhongang Cai, Lei Yang, Gang Yu, Guosheng Lin, et al. Meshanything: Artist-created mesh generation with autoregres- sive transformers. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pp. 51369–51389, 2025a. 14 LATO.2: Factorized 3D Mesh Generation with Vertex and Top...

    2025

  24. [2025]

    Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d

    Yicong Hong, Kai Zhang, Jiuxiang Gu, Sai Bi, Yang Zhou, Difan Liu, Feng Liu, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Trung Bui, and Hao Tan. Lrm: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pp. 50678–50702,

    2024

  25. [2026]

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

    Jiahao Li, Hao Tan, Kai Zhang, Zexiang Xu, Fujun Luan, Yinghao Xu, Yicong Hong, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Greg Shakhnarovich, and Sai Bi. Instant3d: Fast text-to-3d with sparse-view gen- eration and large reconstruction model. InInternational conference on learning representations, volume 2024, pp. 21896–21920,

    2024