Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Uni-Renderer: Unifying Rendering and Inverse Rendering Via Dual Stream Diffusion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One diffusion model performs rendering and inverse rendering together, and the two tasks help each other.

desk verdict A promising unified rendering/inverse-rendering framework whose central cycle-consistency loss is written in a way that doesn't do what the text claims, and the code needed to resolve the ambiguity isn't available. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15050 v4 pith:CIDAVT7F submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CV

Zhifei Chen , Tianshuo Xu , Wenhang Ge , Leyi Wu , Dongyu Yan , Jing He , Luozhou Wang , Lu Zeng
show 2 more authors
Shunsi Zhang Yingcong Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords unifieddiffusioninverserenderingintrinsicdecompositioncycleconsistencymaterialeditingrelightingdualstream
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that rendering and inverse rendering can be tamed as two conditional generation tasks in a single dual-stream diffusion model, rather than as separate pipelines. The forward direction turns intrinsic attributes (albedo, roughness, metallic, normals, lighting) into an RGB image; the inverse direction decomposes a single RGB image back into those attributes. The key move is a cycle-consistent constraint that re-renders the model's own inverse predictions and uses the reconstruction error as an extra training signal, which the authors argue reduces the intrinsic ambiguity of inverse rendering. If true, a single model could replace costly path tracing for material editing and relighting while improving the quality of single-image intrinsic decomposition.

What carries the argument

The engine is a dual-stream latent diffusion with two timesteps: during a rendering iteration the clean attributes are fed at timestep 0 while the RGB latent is noised to a random timestep; during inverse rendering the roles flip. The two streams cross-communicate through zero-convolution connections at mid-block features, and the cycle-consistent loss re-renders the model's own inverse output to compute an extra regression target.

What would settle it

Reimplement the model with the cycle loss exactly as written in Equation 5 (conditioning on original C and noisy inverse output) and compare to the described implementation on the validation split used in Table 2; if the reported 2 dB albedo gain disappears when the loss is implemented as written, the core contribution rests on a specification error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that jointly training the two conditional distributions with a shared dual-stream architecture and a cycle-consistent re-rendering loss improves both tasks, with inverse rendering reaching albedo PSNR 23.20, SSIM 0.9182, LPIPS 0.0532, beating the strongest baseline (IntrinsicAnything) by 0.5 PSNR and 0.0036 SSIM. Ablations show that removing the unified training drops albedo PSNR by roughly 4.6 dB, and removing the cycle-consistent constraint drops it by about 2 dB, supporting the claim that the two processes facilitate each other.

Load-bearing premise

The entire benefit of the cycle-consistent constraint rests on that loss actually re-rendering the model's own inverse predictions through a second diffusion pass, but the equation as printed appears to condition on the original attributes and a noisy inverse output instead.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One trained model can both edit materials from a real photo (inverse render, tweak attributes, re-render) and synthesize images directly from attributes, removing the per-scene optimization and path-tracing cost of traditional rendering.
  • Cycle consistency acts as a self-supervised regularizer that reduces the ill-posedness of inverse rendering, so single-image decomposition improves without needing multi-view or ground-truth materials.
  • The unified model yields relighting and normal estimation that beat dedicated optimization-based baselines (NvdiffRec, GaussianShader) on the synthetic test set.
  • The dual-stream timestep scheme from UniDiffuser transfers from text-image to image-attribute pairs, giving a recipe for unifying other forward/inverse modality pairs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The improvement from 'unified' training might partly come from weight sharing acting as a multi-task regularizer; a test would be to compare against an ensemble of two independently trained models with the same total compute.
  • The cycle-consistent constraint could be viewed as a form of self-distillation; one could test whether a simpler reconstruction loss on the inverse output alone (auto-encoding) captures part of the gain.
  • The synthetic-to-real domain gap the authors acknowledge suggests the next testable step: fine-tuning on a small set of real images with a cycle loss should materially close the gap they observe in real-world inversing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Uni-Renderer, a unified dual-stream diffusion framework that performs both rendering (attributes to RGB) and inverse rendering (RGB to attributes) in a single model. The method uses two pre-trained diffusion branches conditioned on each other through a dual-stream architecture, with timestep scheduling that forces one branch clean so that the two conditional distributions q(x0|y0) and q(y0|x0) are learned. A cycle-consistent constraint is introduced to improve inverse rendering by re-rendering the model's own predictions. The authors train on a large synthetic dataset rendered from Objaverse assets and report quantitative and qualitative improvements over several baselines, with ablations showing that both the unified training and the cycle constraint contribute to the reported gains.

Significance. If the central mechanism is correctly specified, the paper offers a plausible and practically relevant contribution: a single diffusion model that approximates the rendering equation in both directions, with a consistency constraint that targets the ambiguity of inverse rendering. The reported quantitative gains are substantial, and the ablation structure directly supports the unified-training claim. The main weakness is that the cycle-consistent loss, which is the paper's core mechanism for reducing ambiguity, is written in a way that appears inconsistent with the text, and the implementation details needed to verify the gradient path are missing. Because the code and dataset are not yet available, this ambiguity cannot currently be resolved from the manuscript. The paper should be credited for the scale of the dataset effort and for evaluating both forward and inverse rendering, but the central mechanism needs a precise and verifiable specification.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2, Eq. (5)] The cycle-consistent loss is written as L = E[||x0 - xhat0(xhat_rgb, t, C)||^2], but the surrounding text says the cycle uses 'the model's predicted inverse results to perform an additional cycle of rendering.' If C denotes the same ground-truth attribute set defined in Section 3, then the second denoising pass is conditioned on the original attributes, and no gradient flows from this loss into the inverse-rendering branch; the loss reduces to another forward-rendering reconstruction from the correct attributes. The symbol xhat_rgb is also ambiguous: it is called a 'noisy input' rather than a re-rendered image produced from predicted attributes, and the subsequent sentence uses xhat0(xt, t, C), inconsistent with the equation. This is not a cosmetic issue: the 'Ours w/o constrain' ablation in Tables 2 and 3 credits the cycle constraint with large gains, so the exact form of the loss and the gradient path determine whether the reported improvements can be attributed to cycle consistency. Please rewrite Eq. (5) with unambiguous definitions of C_hat and xhat_rgb, specify whether gradients pass through both branches, and clarify whether the predicted attributes are produced by a one-step x0 prediction or by full denoising.
  2. [3.2 and Supplementary Algorithm 1] The training procedure for the cycle-consistent constraint is underspecified. The pseudo-code in Section 6.3 only describes how timesteps are sampled; it does not state when the cycle loss is computed, how many forward passes are required, whether the re-rendered output is detached or differentiated, or what the target x0 in Eq. (5) is (the original clean image, presumably). Since the core claim is that the cycle constraint mitigates ambiguity, this omission is load-bearing. Please provide a complete training algorithm, including the exact inputs to the second denoising pass and the loss computation.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Tables 2-3] The ablations are not described with enough precision to interpret the reported improvements. 'Ours w/o unified' is said to be trained without the unified framework, but the text does not specify how the two separate models are trained or whether they share any components. 'Ours w/o constrain' is the same ablation as 'Ours w/o re-render' in Table 1, but the terminology differs between tables. Please state exactly which components are removed in each ablation and, for the unified ablation, how the two-stream coupling is disabled while keeping the timestep scheduling and data identical.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The phrase 'cycle-consistent constrain' is used throughout; the standard term is 'constraint'.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 does not illustrate the cycle-consistent re-rendering pass, even though it is a central contribution. A diagram showing the second pass and where the loss is applied would help readers understand the mechanism.
  3. [References] Reference [44] has the author names reversed ('Chen Xi, Peng Sida, ...' instead of 'Xi Chen, Sida Peng, ...') and is missing the title; reference [16] lacks the conference or venue information.
  4. [Section 4.2.2] The roughness and metallic MSE results are reported for only two optimization-based baselines because the data-driven baselines do not estimate these properties, but the text should state this explicitly in the main paper rather than only in the supplementary.
  5. [Section 6.3, Algorithm 1] The algorithm returns 'timesteps' but the loop variable and comments are inconsistent ('all t' vs 'timesteps'), which makes the pseudocode harder to follow; please align notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the unified rendering/inverse-rendering framework is trained on external synthetic data and evaluated against external baselines; the Eq. 5 conditioning inconsistency is a specification concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is data-driven: the model is trained on a synthetic paired dataset rendered from Objaverse assets and evaluated against external baselines (IntrinsicAnything, RGB2X, NvDiffRec, GaussianShader, etc.). No quantitative result is obtained by fitting to the test set, and no load-bearing claim is justified by a self-citation chain. The dual-stream design and two-timestep conditional modeling are explicitly inspired by UniDiffuser [1], an external prior work with no overlapping authors, so the architecture choice has independent support. The cycle-consistent constrain in Section 3.2 is described as using the model's predicted inverse results to perform an additional cycle of rendering, but Eq. 5 as written conditions on the ground-truth attribute set C rather than the predicted attributes, which would prevent gradients from flowing into the inverse-rendering branch as claimed. This is an internal specification inconsistency that may affect whether the reported ablation improvement is attributable to cycle consistency, but it is not a circular reduction: the loss is a training objective, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction. The stated limitation about synthetic-to-real domain gap and the promise to release code are also not circularity concerns. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the quality of the synthetic dataset, the validity of the simplified training timetable, and the correctness of the cycle-consistent re-rendering loss. No new physical entities or invented objects are introduced; the free-parameter list is empty because the model parameters are learned from data, not hand-fitted.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The physically based rendering equation (Eq. 1) correctly describes how intrinsic attributes produce the RGB images in the training set.
    The dataset is generated with an (unspecified) physical renderer, and the ground truth images are assumed to follow the rendering equation without significant approximation or error.
  • domain assumption The synthetic Objaverse distribution, with randomized metallic/roughness and a fixed camera, is representative enough of real-world objects and materials for learning a general rendering function.
    The paper relies on this to claim generalization to real-world images; this assumption is partially contradicted by the domain gap acknowledged in the conclusion.
  • domain assumption Training with the two-timestep selection strategy (one branch always at timestep 0) is sufficient to learn the two conditional distributions q(x0|y0) and q(y0|x0).
    This is an approximation of the full UniDiffuser approach; the paper provides no proof of convergence, only empirical ablations.
  • domain assumption The VAE-encoded attribute latents (after concatenation) retain all information needed to condition the diffusion model for rendering and inverse rendering.
    The attribute representation is a design choice; the paper does not analyze information loss or perceptual alignment of the latent space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uni-Renderer: Unifying Rendering and Inverse Rendering Via Dual Stream Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIDAVT7F

@misc{pith2026241215050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uni-Renderer: Unifying Rendering and Inverse Rendering Via Dual Stream Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIDAVT7F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15050}
}
read the original abstract

Rendering and inverse rendering are pivotal tasks in both computer vision and graphics. The rendering equation is the core of the two tasks, as an ideal conditional distribution transfer function from intrinsic properties to RGB images. Despite achieving promising results of existing rendering methods, they merely approximate the ideal estimation for a specific scene and come with a high computational cost. Additionally, the inverse conditional distribution transfer is intractable due to the inherent ambiguity. To address these challenges, we propose a data-driven method that jointly models rendering and inverse rendering as two conditional generation tasks within a single diffusion framework. Inspired by UniDiffuser, we utilize two distinct time schedules to model both tasks, and with a tailored dual streaming module, we achieve cross-conditioning of two pre-trained diffusion models. This unified approach, named Uni-Renderer, allows the two processes to facilitate each other through a cycle-consistent constrain, mitigating ambiguity by enforcing consistency between intrinsic properties and rendered images. Combined with a meticulously prepared dataset, our method effectively decomposition of intrinsic properties and demonstrates a strong capability to recognize changes during rendering. We will open-source our training and inference code to the public, fostering further research and development in this area.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our framework, Uni-renderer, empowers the generative model to function both as a renderer and an inverse renderer by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of our pipeline. During training, both attribute and RGB images are input to a unified model with pre-trained VAE encoders. The timestep selector plays a crucial role by adjusting the timesteps for each branch. Specifically, it ensures that one branch (either the attribute or RGB) has a timestep of 0, while the other branch selects a timestep from t ∈ [0, T]. This mechanism allows our model to effective… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We demonstrate smooth changes via rendering for different metallic and roughness strengths. The rendering is performed giving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Albedo comparison. Albedo Comparison of Uni-Renderer with baseline methods. We compared 4 learning-based methods and 2 optimization-based methods. Among all, Uni-renderer yields the most realistic results. Best viewed in color. information with the PBR model’s informat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison. Rendering Comparison of Uni-Renderer with baseline methods. The base images are with a metallic value of 0.5. The comparison is made with a higher metallic value of 1.0. Best viewed in color. is straightforward with our pipeline. During training…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relighting Comparsion The relighting comparison is performed on validation objects. We first inverse render the input RGB to acquire the intrinsics, and then we updated the lighting information to get the relighting results. The leftmost column is the reference environ…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normal Comparison. Normal Comparison of Uni-Renderer with others methods. Best viewed in color. 4.3. Ablation Study Dual Stream Diffusion. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our dual stream diffusion framework, we compared results with two separate diffusion models fo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Real World Inversing. We present different real-world inversing cases under different lighting conditions. Best viewed in color. eralizes well beyond synthetic training data. Despite this suc￾cess, there are still limitations when applying our approach to certain real-…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: More Qualitative on Inverse Rendering We included more qualitative cases to demonstrate the ability of Uni-renderer to perform inverse. Best viewed in color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: More Qualitative on Inverse Rendering We included more qualitative cases to demonstrate the ability of Uni-renderer to perform inverse. Best viewed in color. image editing. For optimization, the steps are set to 300, and the prompt pairs used are in the format “a obje…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: More Qualitative on Accurate attributes editing We included more qualitative cases to demonstrate the ability of Uni-renderer to perform rendering. The leftmost are reference images, and we have provided both increasing metallic and roughness. Best viewed in color [P…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Tracking plus world-position maps in a neural G-buffer outperform depth as a geometric condition for reference-guided video diffusion rendering on a 68-clip synthetic benchmark.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    One transformer fits all distributions in multi-modal diffusion at scale, 2023

    Fan Bao, Shen Nie, Kaiwen Xue, Chongxuan Li, Shi Pu, Yaole Wang, Gang Yue, Yue Cao, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. One transformer fits all distributions in multi-modal diffusion at scale, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 5

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Shape, illumination, and reflectance from shading

    Jonathan T Barron and Jitendra Malik. Shape, illumination, and reflectance from shading. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence (TPAMI), 2014. 2

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A. Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions,

  4. [4]

    Intrinsic image decomposi- tion via ordinal shading

    Chris Careaga and Ya˘gız Aksoy. Intrinsic image decomposi- tion via ordinal shading. ACM Trans. Graph., 43(1), 2023. 2, 3, 7

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Dib- r++: learning to predict lighting and material with a hybrid differentiable renderer

    Wenzheng Chen, Joey Litalien, Jun Gao, Zian Wang, Clement Fuji Tsang, Sameh Khamis, Or Litany, and Sanja Fidler. Dib- r++: learning to predict lighting and material with a hybrid differentiable renderer. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeuIPS), 2021. 2, 3

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects

    Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR),

    work page

  7. [7]

    Single-image svbrdf capture with a rendering-aware deep network

    Valentin Deschaintre, Miika Aittala, Fredo Durand, George Drettakis, and Adrien Bousseau. Single-image svbrdf capture with a rendering-aware deep network. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 2018. 2, 3

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Practical and robust sten- ciled shadow volumes for hardware-accelerated rendering

    Cass Everitt and Mark J Kilgard. Practical and robust sten- ciled shadow volumes for hardware-accelerated rendering

    work page

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Factored- neus: Reconstructing surfaces, illumination, and materials of possibly glossy objects

    Yue Fan, Ivan Skorokhodov, Oleg V oynov, Savva Ignatyev, Evgeny Burnaev, Peter Wonka, and Yiqun Wang. Factored- neus: Reconstructing surfaces, illumination, and materials of possibly glossy objects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17929,

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ground truth dataset and baseline eval- uations for intrinsic image algorithms

    Roger Grosse, Micah K Johnson, Edward H Adelson, and William T Freeman. Ground truth dataset and baseline eval- uations for intrinsic image algorithms. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion(ICCV), 2009. 2

    2009

  3. [11]

    Materialgan: Reflectance capture using a generative svbrdf model

    Yu Guo, Cameron Smith, Miloˇs Haˇsan, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Shuang Zhao. Materialgan: Reflectance capture using a generative svbrdf model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.00114,

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A history of the unity game engine

    John K Haas. A history of the unity game engine. Diss. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2014. 2

    2014

  5. [13]

    Realistic, hardware-accelerated shading and lighting

    Wolfgang Heidrich and Hans-Peter Seidel. Realistic, hardware-accelerated shading and lighting. In Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 1999. 2

    1999

  6. [14]

    Blender foundations: The essential guide to learning blender 2.5

    Roland Hess. Blender foundations: The essential guide to learning blender 2.5. 2013. 2

    2013

  7. [15]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 3

    2020

  8. [16]

    Gaussianshader: 3d gaussian splatting with shading functions for reflective surfaces

    Yingwenqi Jiang, Jiadong Tu, Yuan Liu, Xifeng Gao, Xiaox- iao Long, Wenping Wang, and Yuexin Ma. Gaussianshader: 3d gaussian splatting with shading functions for reflective surfaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17977, 2023. 6, 7

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Lhq-1024 dataset

    Kaggle user: dimensi0n. Lhq-1024 dataset. https : //www.kaggle.com/datasets/dimensi0n/lhq- 1024, 2023. 6

    2023

  10. [18]

    The rendering equation

    James T Kajiya. The rendering equation. In Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 1986. 2, 4

    1986

  11. [19]

    Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Miika Aittala, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Analyzing and improv- ing the image quality of stylegan. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition (CVPR), 2020. 2

    2020

  12. [20]

    Neu- ral 3d mesh renderer

    Hiroharu Kato, Yoshitaka Ushiku, and Tatsuya Harada. Neu- ral 3d mesh renderer. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2018. 3

    2018

  13. [21]

    Gpu-accelerated path rendering

    Mark J Kilgard and Jeff Bolz. Gpu-accelerated path rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 2012. 2

    2012

  14. [22]

    Intrin- sic image diffusion for indoor single-view material estimation,

    Peter Kocsis, Vincent Sitzmann, and Matthias Nießner. Intrin- sic image diffusion for indoor single-view material estimation,

  15. [23]

    Realistic rendering in architecture and product visualization

    Jaroslav Kˇriv´anek, Christophe Chevallier, Vladimir Koylazov, Ondˇrej Karl´ıik, Henrik Wann Jensen, and Thomas Ludwig. Realistic rendering in architecture and product visualization

  16. [24]

    Bi-directional path tracing

    Eric P Lafortune and Yves D Willems. Bi-directional path tracing. 1993. 2

    1993

  17. [25]

    Game engines

    Michael Lewis and Jeffrey Jacobson. Game engines. Com- munications of the ACM, 2002. 2

    2002

  18. [26]

    Envidr: Implicit differentiable renderer with neural environment lighting

    Ruofan Liang, Huiting Chen, Chunlin Li, Fan Chen, Sel- vakumar Panneer, and Nandita Vijaykumar. Envidr: Implicit differentiable renderer with neural environment lighting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. 3

    2023

  19. [27]

    Nero: Neural geometry and brdf reconstruction of reflective objects from multiview images

    Yuan Liu, Peng Wang, Cheng Lin, Xiaoxiao Long, Jiepeng Wang, Lingjie Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Nero: Neural geometry and brdf reconstruction of reflective objects from multiview images. In SIGGRAPH, 2023. 3

    2023

  20. [28]

    Won- der3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion, 2023

    Xiaoxiao Long, Yuan-Chen Guo, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Zhiyang Dou, Lingjie Liu, Yuexin Ma, Song-Hai Zhang, Marc Habermann, Christian Theobalt, and Wenping Wang. Won- der3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion, 2023. 7

    2023

  21. [29]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthe- sis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthe- sis. Communications of the ACM, 2021. 3

    2021

  22. [30]

    Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models, 2022

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models, 2022. 6, 1

    2022

  23. [31]

    Extracting Triangular 3D Models, Materials, and Lighting From Images

    Jacob Munkberg, Jon Hasselgren, Tianchang Shen, Jun Gao, Wenzheng Chen, Alex Evans, Thomas M ¨uller, and Sanja Fidler. Extracting Triangular 3D Models, Materials, and Lighting From Images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8162–8171. PMLR,

  25. [33]

    Mitsuba 2: A retargetable forward and inverse renderer

    Merlin Nimier-David, Delio Vicini, Tizian Zeltner, and Wen- zel Jakob. Mitsuba 2: A retargetable forward and inverse renderer. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 2019. 2

    2019

  26. [34]

    Physically based rendering: From theory to implementation

    Matt Pharr, Wenzel Jakob, and Greg Humphreys. Physically based rendering: From theory to implementation. 2023. 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 3

    2022

  28. [36]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models, 2022

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models, 2022. 5

    2022

  29. [37]

    Freeman, and Mark Matthews

    Prafull Sharma, Varun Jampani, Yuanzhen Li, Xuhui Jia, Dmitry Lagun, Fredo Durand, William T. Freeman, and Mark Matthews. Alchemist: Parametric control of material proper- ties with diffusion models, 2023. 3

    2023

  30. [38]

    Realistic ray tracing

    Peter Shirley and R Keith Morley. Realistic ray tracing. AK Peters, Ltd., 2008. 2

    2008

  31. [39]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

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

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 3

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Daniel Subias and Manuel Lagunas

    J. Daniel Subias and Manuel Lagunas. In-the-wild material appearance editing using perceptual attributes, 2023. 6, 1, 2

    2023

  34. [42]

    Collaborative control for geometry-conditioned pbr image generation, 2024

    Shimon Vainer, Mark Boss, Mathias Parger, Konstantin Kutsy, Dante De Nigris, Ciara Rowles, Nicolas Perony, and Simon Donn´e. Collaborative control for geometry-conditioned pbr image generation, 2024. 3

    2024

  35. [43]

    Producing anima- tion

    Catherine Winder and Zahra Dowlatabadi. Producing anima- tion. 2013. 2

    2013

  36. [44]

    Chen Xi, Peng Sida, Yang Dongchen, Liu Yuan, Pan Bowen, Lv Chengfei, and Zhou. Xiaowei. Intrinsicanything: Learning diffusion priors for inverse rendering under unknown illumi- nation. arxiv: 2404.11593, 2024. 2, 3, 7

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Neilf: Neu- ral incident light field for physically-based material estima- tion

    Yao Yao, Jingyang Zhang, Jingbo Liu, Yihang Qu, Tian Fang, David McKinnon, Yanghai Tsin, and Long Quan. Neilf: Neu- ral incident light field for physically-based material estima- tion. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV),

  38. [46]

    Weakly-supervised single-view image relighting, 2023

    Renjiao Yi, Chenyang Zhu, and Kai Xu. Weakly-supervised single-view image relighting, 2023. 2, 3, 7

    2023

  39. [47]

    Rgb ↔x: Image decomposition and synthesis using material- and lighting-aware diffusion models

    Zheng Zeng, Valentin Deschaintre, Iliyan Georgiev, Yannick Hold-Geoffroy, Yiwei Hu, Fujun Luan, Ling-Qi Yan, and Miloˇs Haˇsan. Rgb ↔x: Image decomposition and synthesis using material- and lighting-aware diffusion models. In Spe- cial Interest Group on Computer Graphics and I...

    2024

  40. [48]

    Modeling indirect illumination for in- verse rendering

    Yuanqing Zhang, Jiaming Sun, Xingyi He, Huan Fu, Rongfei Jia, and Xiaowei Zhou. Modeling indirect illumination for in- verse rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 3 Uni-Renderer: Unifying Rendering and Inv...

    2022

  41. [49]

    Conv in” and output “Conv out

    Appendix / supplemental material In this supplementary, we will first discuss the detailed net- work architecture and the detailed algorithm for calculating different timesteps for reducing the tasks spaces. Then we will provide a description of the configurations used for bas...

  42. [50]

    make it more/less rough/metallic

    Prompts are built as “make it more/less rough/metallic.” For example, for the prompt “make it rougher,” the roughness of the input and ground truth would be 0 and 1, respectively. For testing, we evaluated both the finetuned model and the original model on our validation set u...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.