MultiDreamer3D: Multi-concept 3D Customization with Concept-Aware Diffusion Guidance

Jaejun Yoo; Seunggyu Chang; Wooseok Song

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 16 references

MultiDreamer3D: Multi-concept 3D Customization with Concept-Aware Diffusion Guidance

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MultiDreamer3D claims the first method for multi-concept 3D customization, using per-concept labeled Gaussians and concept-aware diffusion guidance to stop objects from disappearing or blending together.

desk verdict MultiDreamer3D is a sensible first pass at multi-concept 3D customization, but the RCA overlap issue and thin evaluation keep it from being more than conditionally acceptable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13449 v1 pith:SD4MGYHX submitted 2025-01-23 cs.CV

Wooseok Song , Seunggyu Chang , Jaejun Yoo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords multi-concept3DcustomizationGaussianSplattingconcept-awarediffusionguidanceregionalconceptattentionscoredistillationsamplingLLMlayoutcontrollerpointcloudgenerationpersonalized

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 proposes MultiDreamer3D, a method for generating a single 3D scene that contains several user-defined concepts — for instance "my dog wearing my sunglasses" — from text and reference images of each concept. It claims that a divide-and-conquer pipeline solves two failure modes of existing single-concept 3D customization: objects going missing, and concept identities blending together into a hybrid. The central claim is that concept-aware diffusion guidance, which gates the diffusion model's attention by rendered per-concept masks, preserves each concept's identity while keeping the layout coherent. If this holds, multi-concept 3D customization becomes feasible for multiple subjects, property changes, and interactions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Regional Concept Attention (RCA) module, inserted into the cross-attention of a latent diffusion model. Concept masks $\mathbf{M}$ are obtained by rendering the labeled 3D Gaussians; a threshold $\tau$ turns the soft contribution into a binary mask for each concept plus a background mask. RCA then computes separate queries via $\mathbf{Q}_i = W^q(\mathbf{M}_i \cdot F)$ and separate keys/values via concept-specific LoRA weights and concept prompts, so each attention head attends only to its own concept's region. These per-concept attention features are blended with masked summation, and the result drives both the DDIM inversion and the interval score matching loss, giving CISM the ability to update each Gaussian group with its own identity-preserving signal. The layout side uses the same concept labels to assign point clouds with scale and translation derived from LLM-produced bounding boxes.

What would settle it

Run the method with two visually similar concepts of the same class (e.g., two different dog breeds) in an interacting pose, and monitor the thresholded concept masks during optimization; if the masks merge or swap at any point, the final 3D asset should exhibit a chimera, confirming that the mask-consistency loop is not stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MultiDreamer3D is, to the authors' knowledge, the first method to address multi-concept 3D customization. The paper demonstrates that a 3D Gaussian Splatting scene initialized from per-concept point clouds and updated with concept-aware interval score matching (CISM) can keep the identities of several personalized concepts separate. The key enabling choice is labeling every 3D Gaussian with a one-hot concept label, so that rendering produces 2D concept masks; these masks are then used inside the cross-attention layers of a text-to-image diffusion model to compute isolated query, key, and value vectors per concept. The resulting score update gives each concept its own optimization signal, and the layout generator (an LLM that outputs 3D bounding boxes plus a point-cloud selector) ensures each concept is present in the right place. Quantitative CLIP scores and a user study indicate that the method outperforms baselines that merge LoRA weights of multiple concepts into a single diffusion model.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on the rendered concept masks being accurate: if early in optimization the masks attribute pixels to the wrong concept, the attention gating strengthens that wrong mapping, and identities can be permanently swapped or blended.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Multi-concept 3D customization becomes possible with object presence guaranteed by the layout controller and identity preservation guaranteed by masked attention.
The method handles complex cases such as property change (pose or attribute change) and interaction between concepts, which earlier single-concept approaches could only approximate.
Users can feed a few reference images of their own objects and a text prompt, and receive a single 3D asset where each referenced object appears in a coherent scene.
The per-concept Gaussian labeling enables direct image-3D alignment evaluation for each concept, not just global scene alignment.
The approach suggests a general template for lifting any multi-concept 2D customization method into 3D without merging the concept weights.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the concept-mask gating recipe could transfer to other explicit 3D representations (e.g., meshes or voxels) as long as per-object labels can be rendered into 2D masks.
One testable extension is video generation: if per-frame masks are propagated, the same RCA gating might keep identities stable across time, which the paper does not claim.
A likely failure mode not explored in the paper is strong overlap or occlusion between concepts; adversarial layouts where one concept fully hides another from most views could break the mask-consistency loop.
The LLM layout controller and VLM point-cloud selector are modular; replacing them with deterministic 3D layout prediction would decouple the method from language-model quirks and is a natural ablation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read MultiDreamer3D with the stress-test note in hand. The short version: this is a plausible and useful pipeline for a task—multi-concept 3D customization—that nobody else is directly addressing. The paper deserves a serious referee, but it has one structural gap in the attention mechanism and a set of evaluation weaknesses that need tightening.

The good parts: the task framing is clear. Object missing and concept mixing are the right failure modes, and the pipeline addresses them in a sensible divide-and-conquer way: LLM-generated layout boxes, Shap-E point clouds with a VLM selection step, concept-labeled 3DGS initialization, and concept-aware diffusion guidance. The ablations show each component contributes, and the qualitative comparisons against FedAVG and Mix-of-Show are convincing. The 'first' claim is plausible, though unverified—that's fine as a claim.

The evaluation is thin. Tables 1 and 3 report single runs with no error bars. The user study is 10 samples, 32 raters, no significance test. The image-align metric uses the method's own concept-labeling scheme to isolate each concept, so it is not fully independent, and the baselines that lack labels are only compared in the LG-initialized setting. These are all addressable.

The bigger issue is the one in the stress-test note: the RCA equations assume disjoint concept masks. In 'dog wearing sunglasses', the masks overlap at the pixels where the sunglasses sit on the dog. With both binary masks set to 1, Eq. (7) produces queries that contain both identities, and Eq. (11) sums two attention outputs without normalization. That is a real structural problem in the description, not just an edge case. It may be mitigated in practice by occlusion or by the threshold tau, but the paper doesn't say how, and tau isn't specified. A reviewer should ask for either evidence that overlapping masks don't occur (unlikely for interaction) or a mechanism to handle them.

I would not cite this in my own work yet, but I'd send it to peer review. It's a strong starting point, and the RCA issue is a reasonable major-revision request rather than a kill shot.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MultiDreamer3D, a pipeline for multi-concept 3D customization that takes user-provided concept images and a text prompt and produces a 3D Gaussian Splatting scene containing the concepts. The method has two stages: a 3D Layout Generator (LG) that uses an LLM to predict bounding boxes and a VLM-filtered Shap-E module to create coarse concept point clouds, and Concept-aware Diffusion Guidance (CDG) that optimizes 3D Gaussians with concept labels and a proposed Regional Concept Attention (RCA) mechanism inside a diffusion model, trained with a Concept-aware Interval Score Matching (CISM) loss. The authors evaluate on three cases—multiple subjects, property change, and interaction—against baselines built from Mix-of-Show and FedAVG, reporting CLIP scores, a user study, and an ablation.

Significance. If the stated results hold, MultiDreamer3D would be a useful step toward multi-concept 3D customization, which the paper correctly identifies as underexplored relative to single-concept personalization. The pipeline is modular and the paper provides qualitative and quantitative comparisons that show large apparent gains over the chosen baselines in the displayed examples. The authors also ship a fairly complete system with explicit concept labeling and point cloud selection, which are valuable components. However, the central mechanism for preventing concept mixing has a structural weakness in interaction scenes, and the evaluation lacks variance reporting and independence in one metric, so the strength of the claimed results is not yet fully established.

major comments (4)

[§3.2, Eqs. (6)–(11)] The Regional Concept Attention (RCA) aggregation assumes that concept masks are disjoint, but interaction cases violate this. For a prompt like "A <C0> dog is wearing <C1> sunglasses," the sunglasses and the dog's head project to overlapping pixels. After the threshold τ is applied, both M_0 and M_1 can be 1 at the same pixel while M_bg = 0. Then Eq. (11) produces A_0 + A_1 with no normalization, doubling the attention magnitude and mixing the key/value information from both concepts at those pixels. Likewise, Eq. (7) computes Q_i from M_i·F, but in the overlap region F contains both identities, so the queries are not concept-isolated. The paper provides no soft weighting, renormalization, or mask-refinement mechanism to handle overlaps. Since interaction is one of the three showcased cases and the abstract claims the method "successfully handles" interaction, this is a load-bearing gap that must be addressed either by revising the mechanism or by providing explicit handling of overlapping masks.
[§4.5, Tables 1 and 3] The quantitative results in Tables 1 and 3 are reported as single point estimates with no error bars, no number of random seeds, and no significance tests. Text-to-3D optimization using score distillation is stochastic, and the reported differences, for example 0.2732 versus 0.2578 in Table 1, may be within run-to-run variation. The authors should report means and standard deviations over multiple runs, or otherwise justify that the differences are reproducible and meaningful.
[§4.6, Table 2] The user study uses only 10 samples and 32 raters, and the paper reports no variance, inter-rater agreement, or statistical test. While the mean differences are large (4.72 vs. 2.17 for text alignment), the lack of any significance test makes it impossible to assess whether the observed preference is robust. The paper should include confidence intervals or a paired significance test, and describe how the 10 samples were selected (e.g., whether they are representative across the three cases).
[§4.3] The image-align metric is computed by isolating each concept's 3D Gaussians using the paper's own concept-labeling scheme. For the baselines that are not initialized with the proposed 3D Layout Generator, the metric is only computed after equipping them with the LG module, which is part of the proposed method. This makes the image-align score dependent on the very mechanism that the paper aims to validate, and it is not an independent confirmation of concept-identity preservation. The manuscript should either use a metric computed on full renders (e.g., detection of each concept without explicit masking) or explicitly discuss this confounding factor as a limitation.

minor comments (4)

[Title page] The affiliation "NA VER Cloud" appears to be a typo for "NAVER Cloud."
[§3.2, Eq. (8)] The threshold τ used to binarize the concept masks is never specified or ablated; please provide the value and a sensitivity study.
[§4.1] The paper states that 13 unique objects are selected from the Custom Diffusion and DreamBooth datasets, and that 47 text prompts are crafted, but it does not list the objects or give a per-case breakdown of prompts. Adding this detail would improve reproducibility.
[§1, Contributions] The claim "we are the first to address multi-concept 3D customization" is strong and not supported by a literature search beyond the cited references; please qualify the claim or cite concurrent work if any exists.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper proposes a generative pipeline and evaluates it with external baselines and independent metrics.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a first-principles prediction that reduces to its inputs. MultiDreamer3D is a construction: the LLM-based layout controller, Shap-E point clouds, concept labeling, regional concept attention, and concept-aware interval score matching are system components that jointly produce 3D content. The central claims—object presence, identity preservation, and handling of property-change and interaction cases—are supported by qualitative results, CLIP scores, ablations, and a user study against external baselines (3DGS + ISM with Mix-of-Show and FedAVG), so they are not fitted-into-the-derivation. The only mildly self-referential evaluation choice is the image-alignment metric, which uses the method's own concept labeling to isolate each concept before comparing with reference images; however, this is an evaluation protocol rather than a derived prediction, it is applied to baselines where the same LG initialization is used, and the user study provides an independent check. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the cited prior work (LucidDreamer, Mix-of-Show, DreamBooth, etc.) is external, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own prior papers. The overlapping-mask concern for interaction cases (e.g., a dog wearing sunglasses) is a potential correctness limitation of the RCA aggregation in Eq. (11), not a circularity, because it does not make any claimed output equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several heuristic components: LLM-generated boxes, Shap-E point clouds, VLM selection, per-concept LoRAs, and handcrafted prompt decomposition. Hyperparameters such as lambda, tau, delta_T, and candidate counts are unreported. No fundamentally new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; the concept label and attention modulation are algorithmic constructs within the pipeline.

free parameters (4)

Regional concept attention LoRA scale lambda = not reported
Scales concept-specific key and value projections in Eq. (8); hand-chosen and central to identity preservation.
Concept mask threshold tau = not reported
Binarizes rendered concept masks in Section 3.2; controls how cleanly image regions are assigned to concepts.
DDIM inversion step size delta_T = not reported
Interval length between timesteps s and t in CISM, Eqs. (3), (12), and (13); inherited from ISM but must be set.
Number of Shap-E candidate point clouds per concept = not reported
The VLM selector chooses among candidates; the candidate count is not stated and affects geometry quality.

assumptions (7)

standard math The 3DGS rendering equations and DDIM inversion formulas from the cited literature are correct and applicable.
The method builds directly on Eqs. (1), (2), and (3) from prior work without re-deriving them.
domain assumption Shap-E provides sufficiently accurate coarse geometry for arbitrary user concepts.
Invoked in Section 3.1 as the source of all initial concept point clouds; if Shap-E fails for a concept, the final identity may be lost.
domain assumption The VLM point cloud selector reliably ranks Shap-E candidates by text fidelity.
The selection module chooses the best candidate from renderings at fixed viewpoints, with no quantitative validation of selector accuracy.
domain assumption The LLM layout controller, given hand-written in-context examples, outputs valid 3D bounding boxes.
Section 3.1 relies on GPT-4-style in-context learning to produce consistent boxes, but no failure rate or calibration is reported.
ad hoc to paper RCA's masked attention with per-concept LoRAs prevents concept mixing during diffusion.
Eqs. (7) through (11) define the mechanism, but the paper offers no proof or controlled analysis that masked attention alone is responsible for identity preservation.
ad hoc to paper Manual decomposition of prompts into p0, p1, and pbg preserves interaction semantics.
The decomposition in Section 3.2 is handcrafted per example and assumes interaction meaning, such as wearing or riding, survives when concepts are split into separate prompts.
ad hoc to paper Binary concept masks from labeled Gaussians, after threshold tau, reflect true concept attribution in rendered images.
Eq. (6) renders soft concept contributions that are then thresholded; the threshold is not tuned or validated against ground-truth segmentation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MultiDreamer3D: Multi-concept 3D Customization with Concept-Aware Diffusion Guidance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SD4MGYHX

@misc{pith2026250113449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MultiDreamer3D: Multi-concept 3D Customization with Concept-Aware Diffusion Guidance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SD4MGYHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13449}
}

read the original abstract

While single-concept customization has been studied in 3D, multi-concept customization remains largely unexplored. To address this, we propose MultiDreamer3D that can generate coherent multi-concept 3D content in a divide-and-conquer manner. First, we generate 3D bounding boxes using an LLM-based layout controller. Next, a selective point cloud generator creates coarse point clouds for each concept. These point clouds are placed in the 3D bounding boxes and initialized into 3D Gaussian Splatting with concept labels, enabling precise identification of concept attributions in 2D projections. Finally, we refine 3D Gaussians via concept-aware interval score matching, guided by concept-aware diffusion. Our experimental results show that MultiDreamer3D not only ensures object presence and preserves the distinct identities of each concept but also successfully handles complex cases such as property change or interaction. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to address the multi-concept customization in 3D.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13449 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Multi-concept 3D customization with MultiDreamer3D. MultiDreamer3D can generate 3D content incorporating multiple input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Challenges in multi-concept 3D customization. The 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Overall pipeline of MultiDreamer3D. (a) The 3D layout controller produces 3D bounding boxes given text descriptions. Sub [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The Regional Concept Attention (RCA) modulates the cross-attention layer in the diffusion model. Individual concept query [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Qualitative results. We compare our method with other baselines in three cases, mulitple subjects, property change, and interac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Ablation study. (a) generated with baseline (3DGS + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[1]

Gpt-4 technical report

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ah- mad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 ,

arXiv
[2]

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

Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patash- nik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 1

arXiv 2022
[3]

Mix-of-show: Decentralized low- rank adaptation for multi-concept customization of diffusion models

Yuchao Gu, Xintao Wang, Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yujun Shi, Yun- peng Chen, Zihan Fan, Wuyou Xiao, Rui Zhao, Shuning Chang, Weijia Wu, et al. Mix-of-show: Decentralized low- rank adaptation for multi-concept customization of diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 2, 7

work page 2024
[4]

Likert scale: Explored and explained

Ankur Joshi, Saket Kale, Satish Chandel, and D Kumar Pal. Likert scale: Explored and explained. British journal of ap- plied science & technology, 7(4):396–403, 2015. 7

work page 2015
[5]

Shap-e: Generat- ing conditional 3d implicit functions

Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. Shap-e: Generat- ing conditional 3d implicit functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463, 2023. 4, 8

arXiv 2023
[6]

3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4):1–14, 2023. 1, 2, 3

work page 2023
[7]

Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion

Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1931–1941, 2023. 6

work page 1931
[8]

Luciddreamer: Towards high-fidelity text-to-3d generation via interval score match- ing

Yixun Liang, Xin Yang, Jiantao Lin, Haodong Li, Xiao- gang Xu, and Yingcong Chen. Luciddreamer: Towards high-fidelity text-to-3d generation via interval score match- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11284, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 7

arXiv 2023

Show all 16 references

[9]

Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication- efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics , pages 1273–1282. PMLR, 2017. 2, 7, 8

2017
[10]

Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 1, 3

2021
[11]

Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion

Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988, 2022. 1, 2, 3

2022 arXiv
[12]

Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

2021
[13]

High-resolution image 8 synthesis with latent diffusion models

Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image 8 synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 1, 2, 4, 5

2022
[14]

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

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

2023
[15]

Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information...

2022
[16]

Denoising diffusion implicit models

Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 3, 5 9

2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Gpt-4 technical report

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ah- mad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 ,

arXiv

[2] [2]

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

Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patash- nik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 1

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

Mix-of-show: Decentralized low- rank adaptation for multi-concept customization of diffusion models

Yuchao Gu, Xintao Wang, Jay Zhangjie Wu, Yujun Shi, Yun- peng Chen, Zihan Fan, Wuyou Xiao, Rui Zhao, Shuning Chang, Weijia Wu, et al. Mix-of-show: Decentralized low- rank adaptation for multi-concept customization of diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 2, 7

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Likert scale: Explored and explained

Ankur Joshi, Saket Kale, Satish Chandel, and D Kumar Pal. Likert scale: Explored and explained. British journal of ap- plied science & technology, 7(4):396–403, 2015. 7

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Shap-e: Generat- ing conditional 3d implicit functions

Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. Shap-e: Generat- ing conditional 3d implicit functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463, 2023. 4, 8

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 (4):1–14, 2023. 1, 2, 3

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion

Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Multi-concept customization of text-to-image diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1931–1941, 2023. 6

work page 1931

[8] [8]

Luciddreamer: Towards high-fidelity text-to-3d generation via interval score match- ing

Yixun Liang, Xin Yang, Jiantao Lin, Haodong Li, Xiao- gang Xu, and Yingcong Chen. Luciddreamer: Towards high-fidelity text-to-3d generation via interval score match- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11284, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 7

arXiv 2023