Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Consistency Diffusion Models for Single-Image 3D Reconstruction with Priors

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a multi-view depth-projection loss at every diffusion step, the Consistency Diffusion Model aims to keep single-image 3D point-cloud reconstructions structurally consistent with the target object.

desk verdict Empirically plausible regularizer, but the ELBO derivation is internally inconsistent and the SOTA claim outruns the baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16737 v2 pith:5I7DDYH5 submitted 2025-01-28 cs.CV

Chenru Jiang , Chengrui Zhang , Xi Yang , Jie Sun , Yifei Zhang , Bin Dong , Kaizhu Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords single-image3DreconstructionpointclouddiffusionconsistencyconstraintpriorevidencelowerbounddepthandcontourpriorsShapeNetCo3D
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

This paper proposes the Consistency Diffusion Model (CDM), a point-cloud diffusion model that reconstructs a 3D shape from a single RGB image. Its central idea is to add a '3D Prior Constraint' to the training loss: the noisy cloud at every diffusion step is rotated to $H$ viewpoints, rendered into depth images, and compared by mean squared error with the depth images of the clean target cloud. The authors argue that this term is a variational bound term that continuously closes the distribution between $x_t$ and $x_0$, raising the evidence lower bound (ELBO) and making reconstructions structurally consistent rather than merely low-error. They also inject 2D priors extracted from the input image, choosing contour information on synthetic data and depth information on real-world data. On the ShapeNet and Co3D benchmarks, CDM lowers Chamfer distance and raises F-Score against the projection-conditioned baseline, both alone and when combined with the class-level Bayesian-diffusion sampler.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 3D Prior Constraint: a regularizer that renders $x_t$ and $x_0$ from $H$ fixed viewpoints and penalizes the mean squared difference of the resulting depth images, replacing the intractable 3D distance $\|x_t - x_0\|^2$ with a projection-based surrogate. This term is folded into the reverse-process variational bound so that it appears as an extra loss alongside the standard noise-prediction loss at every timestep. The 2D-prior branch is a second mechanism: features from a self-supervised vision transformer (DINO v2) are concatenated with the image features before pixel-to-point projection, giving the model denser initial point conditioning.

What would settle it

Train with $H=2$ viewpoints and test on shapes that differ only in regions hidden from those viewpoints: if the projected-depth MSE behaved like a true 3D distance, the model could not distinguish such shapes, so nearly identical reconstructions would show that the constraint is view-only rather than geometric. A second check is the supplementary derivation, where Eq. (8) gives the bound term a negative sign while Eq. (5) gives it a positive sign; reconciling that sign is needed for the ELBO-maximization claim to hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that conditioning a point-cloud diffusion model on the input image is not enough: the model also needs a training-time term that measures, at every timestep $t$, how far the noisy point cloud $x_t$ has drifted from the clean target $x_0$. This '3D Prior Constraint' is derived as a bound term in the reverse-process variational objective, using $H$ precomputed camera rotations to render both clouds into depth images, and implemented as $\sum_{i=1}^{H} \|\mathrm{proj}(x_t, v_i) - \mathrm{proj}(x_0, v_i)\|_2^2$ added to the noise-prediction loss. Because the constraint is a soft supervision loss rather than a projected condition, it avoids what the authors call 'model learning drift' -- the performance drop they observe when extra views are used as conditioning at training but are unavailable at sampling. The authors report that this, together with 2D priors (DINO v2 depth features on real images, contour maps on synthetic images), improves reconstruction consistency and sets new state-of-the-art results on the synthetic and real benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The method rests on the assumption that the MSE between depth images of $x_t$ and $x_0$ rendered from $H$ fixed viewpoints faithfully measures how far the two 3D clouds are, even though projections are not injective and large noise can dominate the rendered depth; if that surrogate misleads, the claimed ELBO boost and consistency gain lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 3D Prior Constraint raises the ELBO as claimed, intermediate denoising steps stay closer to the target cloud, so reconstruction consistency is enforced throughout the reverse process, not only at the final output.
  • Because the extra term is a mean-squared-error over rendered depth images, it adds negligible training overhead, making the method easy to graft onto existing projection-conditioned point-cloud diffusion pipelines.
  • Using the 3D prior as a soft supervision loss rather than as an extra condition avoids the train/sampling mismatch the authors call model learning drift, so the model can still be sampled from a single image with no extra inputs.
  • On the synthetic benchmark, combining CDM with the class-level Bayesian-diffusion sampler yields further improvements, indicating that the learned consistency prior and the class-level prior are complementary.
  • On real-world data, depth-derived 2D priors help more than contour-derived priors, while the reverse holds on synthetic data, so the best prior type depends on the domain's feature distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the projected-depth loss is really a view-consistency regularizer, not a full 3D-distance surrogate: two clouds that coincide in the $H$ rendered depth images but differ in occluded regions should receive identical penalties, so the constraint can be gamed by shapes that agree only on the sampled views.
  • A testable extension is to compute the permutation-invariant 3D distance (e.g., Chamfer distance) between $x_t$ and $x_0$ on a small training subset and correlate it with the projected-depth MSE; a weak correlation would indicate the bound term's theoretical role is not what the ELBO derivation claims, even if the loss still helps empirically.
  • The same soft-prior mechanism could transfer to other renderable 3D representations, such as meshes, NeRFs, or Gaussian splats, where a few fixed-view depth projections could serve as a training-time consistency regularizer without changing the conditioning at inference.
  • The dataset-dependent success of contour versus depth priors suggests that pretrained 2D feature extractors carry domain-specific biases; a practical corollary is that prior selection should be validated per dataset rather than assumed transferable.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Consistency Diffusion Models (CDM) for single-image 3D point cloud reconstruction. The method extends the PC2 conditional diffusion framework by adding two forms of prior knowledge: an object-level 3D prior, obtained by rendering the ground-truth point cloud from H fixed viewpoints and comparing the projected noisy cloud x_t with the projected clean cloud x_0 via MSE, and 2D priors extracted from the input image (contours on ShapeNet, DINOv2-based depth on Co3D) that are concatenated with image features. The paper claims that the 3D prior term is a variational bound term that 'continuously closes the data distribution between x_t and x_0' and thereby increases the ELBO (Sec. 3.2). Experiments on ShapeNet and Co3D report improvements over PC2 and BDM in Chamfer Distance and F-Score, supported by ablations on the two priors and on rendering settings. The central theoretical derivation, however, contains an internal sign inconsistency that invalidates the stated ELBO claim.

Significance. If the ELBO argument were correct, the paper would provide a principled and computationally cheap way to inject object-level 3D structural priors into diffusion training, and the empirical gains, especially on Co3D (e.g., average CD from 121.04 to 106.10 in Table 3), would be of interest to the single-image 3D reconstruction community. The paper also reports useful negative results on direct prior conditioning and introduces the 'model learning drift' phenomenon in the supplementary material. On the other hand, the theoretical core of the first contribution is not sound as written: the sign in the variational bound is inconsistent between Eq. (5) and Supp. Eq. (8), and the claimed ELBO increase does not follow from the model in Eq. (4). Once the ELBO justification is removed, the method reduces to a heuristic projection-based regularizer, and the empirical evidence, which lacks variance and significance reporting, is not strong enough to support the paper's central claims. The included code and detailed supplementary ablations are strengths that make the work potentially rescuable in a substantially revised form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (5) and Supp. Eq. (8)] The two derivations of the variational bound give opposite signs for the 3D Prior Constraint: Eq. (5) contains +λ∑||x_t−x_0||², while Supp. Eq. (8) contains −λ∑||x_t−x_0||². Direct expansion of the modified reverse process defined in Eq. (4) gives −log p̃θ(x_0:T) = −log p(x_T) − ∑log pθ(x_{t−1}|x_t) + λ∑||x_t−x_0||², so the positive sign in Eq. (5) is the one that follows from Eq. (4). But a positive penalty in the variational upper bound on negative log-likelihood loosens the bound and therefore decreases, not increases, the ELBO. If the negative sign in Supp. Eq. (8) were intended instead, the resulting objective would reward large ||x_t−x_0|| and would contradict the implemented consistency loss in Eq. (6). Either way, the central claim of Sec. 3.2 that adding this term 'increases the ELBO' is not supported by the derivation.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (6)] The replacement of the intractable bound term ||x_t−x_0||² by the sum of MSEs between depth images projected from H fixed viewpoints is not justified. Depth-map projection is non-injective: two different point clouds can produce identical depth images from all H sampled views, so the proposed Prior Constraint is not equivalent to the original 3D distance. At large diffusion timesteps, moreover, x_t is dominated by noise and the rendered depth images are governed by rendering artifacts rather than shape. This surrogate may still be a reasonable regularizer, but the paper presents it as a faithful implementation of the ELBO bound term, and that equivalence is load-bearing for the consistency claim.
  3. [Sec. 4, Tables 1 and 3] The reported empirical gains over PC2 and BDM are modest and are presented without error bars, number of runs, or significance tests. In Table 1 several categories (bench, loudspeaker, telephone) are worse on CD than PC2, and the average F1 improvement is 0.011. Without variability information, the claim of consistent superiority and 'new benchmarks' is not established. The Co3D results in Table 3 are more favorable, but they cover only three categories and are also single-point estimates.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The KL term is written as D_KL(q(x_T | x_t0) || p(x_T)); the subscript should be q(x_T | x_0).
  2. [Eq. (6)] The projection operator proj(·, v_i) is never formally defined; please specify the rasterization/depth convention and how point size parameters affect the projected depth images.
  3. [Supp. Eq. (8)] The derivation uses p̃θ(x_{t−1}|x_t, x_0) and q(x_t|x_{t+1}) without defining these conditionals; the notation should be cleaned up, e.g., pθ(x_{t−1}|x_t) and q(x_t|x_{t−1}).
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Table 5] The ablation on frames and point size compares only two configurations and does not support the stated conclusion that 'the big number of frames is also a crucial factor in improving model performance'; 10 frames with point size 0.0075 gives F1 0.451, essentially the same as 4 frames with point size 0.04 (0.452).
  5. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (7)] The text says ShapeNet uses contour information and Co3D uses DINOv2 depth, but Eq. (7) describes only DINOv2 outputs; clarify how contours are obtained and combined with the image features.
  6. [Abstract and Implementation Details] The abstract and Section 4 state that code is included with the submission, but no repository link or supplementary code listing is provided in the main text; a usable link should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the 3D prior constraint is supervised against ground-truth x0 and benchmarked externally. The ELBO sign inconsistency is a derivation soundness issue, not a circular one.

full rationale

The paper's central added term, the 3D Priors Constraint in Eq. 6, is a supervised regularization loss computed between the noisy cloud x_t (and its projections) and the ground-truth cloud x0 obtained from COLMAP. It is not fitted to the model's own outputs and is not a prediction derived from the same quantity it claims to predict, so it does not reduce to its input by construction. The projection-based surrogate proj(x_t, v_i) - proj(x0, v_i) is explicitly presented as an approximation of the intractable 3D distance ||x_t - x0||^2, not as a definitional restatement of it; this is an approximation concern, not circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no renamed known result: the architecture follows PC2 and BDM with an additional ground-truth-based regularizer, and the empirical claims are evaluated against external ShapeNet and Co3D benchmarks. The ELBO derivation does contain a genuine internal inconsistency: Eq. 5 places a positive +lambda*sum||x_t - x0||^2 term in the variational upper bound while Supp. Eq. 8 derives a negative -lambda*sum||x_t - x0||^2 term, so the statement that the added term 'maximizes the ELBO' is not supported by the paper's own equations. However, that is a soundness/correctness defect in the theoretical narrative, not an instance of the claimed result being equivalent to its assumptions by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on a tractable-projection assumption, a transfer-learning assumption about DINOv2 features, and an asserted but unproven variational bound. The free parameters are the regularization weight (unstated), the number of viewpoints, the renderer point size, and the per-dataset choice of 2D prior. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (3D prior constraint weight) = not stated; implicitly 1 in Eq. 6
    Scales the consistency penalty in Eqs. 4 and 5; never given a value in the paper, yet it controls the strength of the extra loss.
  • H (number of rendered viewpoints) = 10
    Tab. 5 shows F1 improves from 0.452 with 4 frames to 0.461 with 10 frames; final results use 10 frames.
  • Rendered point size = 0.04
    Tab. 5 shows 0.04 beats 0.0075 (F1 0.461 versus 0.451); sparse rendering hurts the distance computation.
  • 2D prior modality per dataset = contour for ShapeNet, depth for Co3D
    Chosen based on which performs better in Tab. 6; the headline numbers use the favorable choice for each dataset, a post-hoc selection.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Depth-map projection MSE is a valid surrogate for 3D point cloud distance
    Introduced in Sec. 3.2 to make the bound tractable; projections are not injective and the surrogate is unproven.
  • domain assumption DINOv2 features or extracted contours provide useful 2D priors when concatenated with image features
    Sec. 3.3; empirically motivated, no theoretical support, and effectiveness varies by dataset.
  • ad hoc to paper The regularized posterior in Eq. 4 yields a variational bound that increases the ELBO
    The main text asserts this with a plus sign in Eq. 5, while the supplementary derivation in Eq. 8 has a minus sign; the claim is not established and is inconsistent with the model definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consistency Diffusion Models for Single-Image 3D Reconstruction with Priors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5I7DDYH5

@misc{pith2026250116737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consistency Diffusion Models for Single-Image 3D Reconstruction with Priors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5I7DDYH5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16737}
}
read the original abstract

This paper delves into the study of 3D point cloud reconstruction from a single image. Our objective is to develop the Consistency Diffusion Model, exploring synergistic 2D and 3D priors in the Bayesian framework to ensure superior consistency in the reconstruction process, a challenging yet critical requirement in this field. Specifically, we introduce a pioneering training framework under diffusion models that brings two key innovations. First, we convert 3D structural priors derived from the initial 3D point cloud as a bound term to increase evidence in the variational Bayesian framework, leveraging these robust intrinsic priors to tightly govern the diffusion training process and bolster consistency in reconstruction. Second, we extract and incorporate 2D priors from the single input image, projecting them onto the 3D point cloud to enrich the guidance for diffusion training. Our framework not only sidesteps potential model learning shifts that may arise from directly imposing additional constraints during training but also precisely transposes the 2D priors into the 3D domain. Extensive experimental evaluations reveal that our approach sets new benchmarks in both synthetic and real-world datasets. The code is included with the submission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16737 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of reconstruction results comparis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model structure of conventional diffusion model a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of rendered “teddybear” image from 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustrative structure for incorporating 2D and 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison on the ShapeNet dataset. The firs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison on the Co3D dataset. The first col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of the generation results of the zero [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of ControlNet outputs after fine-tun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

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. A Continuous-Time Consistency Model for 3D Point Cloud Generation

    cs.CV 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    ConTiCoM-3D trains a continuous-time consistency-style model directly on raw 3D point clouds using flow matching plus Chamfer distance, with one- to two-step generation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Statistical approach to shape from shading: Reconstruc- tion of three-dimensional face surfaces from single two- dimensional images

    Joseph J Atick, Paul A Griffin, and A Norman Redlich. Statistical approach to shape from shading: Reconstruc- tion of three-dimensional face surfaces from single two- dimensional images. Neural computation, 8(6):1321–1340, 1996. 2

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository

    Angel X Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, et al. Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03012, 2015. 6

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Mvsnerf: Fast general- izable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stere o

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Fuqiang Zhao, Xiaoshuai Zhang, Fanbo Xiang, Jingyi Y u, and Hao Su. Mvsnerf: Fast general- izable radiance field reconstruction from multi-view stere o. In ICCV, pages 14124–14133, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Neuraled- itor: Editing neural radiance fields via manipulating point clouds

    Jun-Kun Chen, Jipeng Lyu, and Y u-Xiong Wang. Neuraled- itor: Editing neural radiance fields via manipulating point clouds. In CVPR, pages 12439–12448, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Reproducible scal- ing laws for contrastive language-image learning

    Mehdi Cherti, Romain Beaumont, Ross Wightman, Mitchell Wortsman, Gabriel Ilharco, Cade Gordon, Christoph Schuh- mann, Ludwig Schmidt, and Jenia Jitsev. Reproducible scal- ing laws for contrastive language-image learning. In CVPR, pages 2818–2829, 2023. 5, 1

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Vi- sual hull alignment and refinement across time: A 3d recon- struction algorithm combining shape-from-silhouette wit h stereo

    German KM Cheung, Simon Baker, and Takeo Kanade. Vi- sual hull alignment and refinement across time: A 3d recon- struction algorithm combining shape-from-silhouette wit h stereo. In CVPR, pages II–375. IEEE, 2003. 2

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    3d-r2n2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3d object reconstruction

    Christopher B Choy, Danfei Xu, JunY oung Gwak, Kevin Chen, and Silvio Savarese. 3d-r2n2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3d object reconstruction. In ECCV, pages 628–644. Springer, 2016. 2

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    3d-r2n2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3d object reconstruction

    Christopher B Choy, Danfei Xu, JunY oung Gwak, Kevin Chen, and Silvio Savarese. 3d-r2n2: A unified approach for single and multi-view 3d object reconstruction. In ECCV, 2016. 6

    work page 2016

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Learning human-to-robot handovers from point clouds

    Sammy Christen, Wei Yang, Claudia P´ erez-D’Arpino, Ot- mar Hilliges, Dieter Fox, and Y u-Wei Chao. Learning human-to-robot handovers from point clouds. In CVPR, pages 9654–9664, 2023. 1

    2023

  2. [10]

    Ccd-3dr: Consistent conditioning in diffusion for single-image 3d reconstruct ion

    Yan Di, Chenyangguang Zhang, Pengyuan Wang, Guangyao Zhai, Ruida Zhang, Fabian Manhardt, Benjamin Busam, Xi- angyang Ji, and Federico Tombari. Ccd-3dr: Consistent conditioning in diffusion for single-image 3d reconstruct ion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07837, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 6

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Single-vie w 3d reconstruction: A survey of deep learning methods

    George Fahim, Khalid Amin, and Sameh Zarif. Single-vie w 3d reconstruction: A survey of deep learning methods. Com- puters & Graphics, 94:164–190, 2021. 2

    2021

  5. [13]

    Single image 3d object reconstruction based on deep learn- ing: A review

    Kui Fu, Jiansheng Peng, Qiwen He, and Hanxiao Zhang. Single image 3d object reconstruction based on deep learn- ing: A review. MTA, 80(1):463–498, 2021. 2

    2021

  6. [14]

    Deep learning for 3d point clouds: A survey

    Y ulan Guo, Hanyun Wang, Qingyong Hu, Hao Liu, Li Liu, and Mohammed Bennamoun. Deep learning for 3d point clouds: A survey. ITPAMI, 43(12):4338–4364, 2020. 5

    2020

  7. [15]

    Multiple view ge- ometry in computer vision

    Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. Multiple view ge- ometry in computer vision . Cambridge university press,

  8. [16]

    Unsupervised learning of 3d object cate- gories from videos in the wild

    Philipp Henzler, Jeremy Reizenstein, Patrick Labatut , Ro- man Shapovalov, Tobias Ritschel, Andrea V edaldi, and David Novotny. Unsupervised learning of 3d object cate- gories from videos in the wild. In CVPR, pages 4700–4709, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  9. [17]

    Shape from shading: A method for ob- taining the shape of a smooth opaque object from one view

    Berthold KP Horn. Shape from shading: A method for ob- taining the shape of a smooth opaque object from one view. 1970. 2

    1970

  10. [18]

    Codenerf: Disentan- gled neural radiance fields for object categories

    Wonbong Jang and Lourdes Agapito. Codenerf: Disentan- gled neural radiance fields for object categories. In ICCV, pages 12949–12958, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  11. [19]

    Geonerf: Generalizing nerf with geometry priors

    Mohammad Mahdi Johari, Yann Lepoittevin, and Franc ¸oi s Fleuret. Geonerf: Generalizing nerf with geometry priors. In CVPR, pages 18365–18375, 2022. 2

    2022

  12. [20]

    Learning a multi-view stereo machine

    Abhishek Kar, Christian H¨ ane, and Jitendra Malik. Learning a multi-view stereo machine. NIPS, 30, 2017. 2

    2017

  13. [21]

    Learning view priors for single-view 3d reconstruction

    Hiroharu Kato and Tatsuya Harada. Learning view priors for single-view 3d reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 9778–9787,

  14. [22]

    Viewformer: Nerf-free neural rendering from few images using transformers

    Jon´ aˇ s Kulh´ anek, Erik Derner, Torsten Sattler, and R obert Babuˇ ska. Viewformer: Nerf-free neural rendering from few images using transformers. In ECCV, pages 198–216. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  15. [23]

    Self-supervised single-view 3d reconstruction via semantic consistency

    Xueting Li, Sifei Liu, Kihwan Kim, Shalini De Mello, V ar un Jampani, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Jan Kautz. Self-supervised single-view 3d reconstruction via semantic consistency. I n ECCV, pages 677–693. Springer, 2020. 2

    2020

  16. [24]

    Photometric mesh optimization for video-aligned 3d object reconstruction

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Oliver Wang, Bryan C Russell, Eli Shech t- man, Vladimir G Kim, Matthew Fisher, and Simon Lucey. Photometric mesh optimization for video-aligned 3d object reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 969–978, 2019. 1

    2019

  17. [25]

    One-2-3-45++: Fast single image to 3d objects with consistent multi-view generation and 3d diffusion

    Minghua Liu, Ruoxi Shi, Linghao Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Hansheng Chen, Chong Zeng, Ji- ayuan Gu, and Hao Su. One-2-3-45++: Fast single image to 3d objects with consistent multi-view generation and 3d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07885, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    One-2-3-45: Any single image to 3d mesh in 45 seconds without per-shape optimiza- tion

    Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Haian Jin, Linghao Chen, Mukund V arma T, Zexiang Xu, and Hao Su. One-2-3-45: Any single image to 3d mesh in 45 seconds without per-shape optimiza- tion. NIPS, 36, 2024. 3

    2024

  19. [27]

    Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object, 2023

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile V an Hoorick, Pavel Tok- makov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl V ondrick. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object, 2023. 3, 6

    2023

  20. [28]

    Hoi4d: A 4d egocentric dataset for category-level human- object interaction

    Y unze Liu, Y un Liu, Che Jiang, Kangbo Lyu, Weikang Wan, Hao Shen, Boqiang Liang, Zhoujie Fu, He Wang, and Li Yi. Hoi4d: A 4d egocentric dataset for category-level human- object interaction. In CVPR, pages 21013–21022, 2022. 1

    2022

  21. [29]

    Neural rays for occlusion-aware image-based render- ing

    Y uan Liu, Sida Peng, Lingjie Liu, Qianqian Wang, Peng Wang, Christian Theobalt, Xiaowei Zhou, and Wenping Wang. Neural rays for occlusion-aware image-based render- ing. In CVPR, pages 7824–7833, 2022. 2

    2022

  22. [30]

    Syncdreamer: Gen- erating multiview-consistent images from a single-view im - age

    Y uan Liu, Cheng Lin, Zijiao Zeng, Xiaoxiao Long, Lingji e Liu, Taku Komura, and Wenping Wang. Syncdreamer: Gen- erating multiview-consistent images from a single-view im - age. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03453, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation

    Shitong Luo and Wei Hu. Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation. In CVPR, pages 2837–2845,

  24. [32]

    A conditional point diffusion-refinement paradigm for 3d point cloud completion

    Zhaoyang Lyu, Zhifeng Kong, Xudong Xu, Liang Pan, and Dahua Lin. A conditional point diffusion-refinement paradigm for 3d point cloud completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03530, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pc2: Projection-conditioned point cloud diffusi on for single-image 3d reconstruction

    Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea V edaldi. Pc2: Projection-conditioned point cloud diffusi on for single-image 3d reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 12923– 12932, 2023. 2, 3, 4

    2023

  26. [34]

    Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space

    Lars Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, Michael Niemeyer, Se - bastian Nowozin, and Andreas Geiger. Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space. In CVPR, pages 4460–4470, 2019. 1

    2019

  27. [35]

    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. CACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2

    2021

  28. [36]

    George A. Miller. WordNet: A lexical database for En- glish. In Human Language Technology: Proceedings of a W orkshop held at Plainsboro, New Jersey, March 8-11, 1994,

    1994

  29. [37]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth´ ee Darcet, Th´ eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, V asil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 2, 6

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Com- mon objects in 3d: Large-scale learning and evaluation of real-life 3d category reconstruction

    Jeremy Reizenstein, Roman Shapovalov, Philipp Henzle r, Luca Sbordone, Patrick Labatut, and David Novotny. Com- mon objects in 3d: Large-scale learning and evaluation of real-life 3d category reconstruction. In ICCV, 2021. 6

    2021

  31. [39]

    Sharf: Shape-conditioned radiance fields from a si n- gle view

    Konstantinos Rematas, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Vi ttorio Ferrari. Sharf: Shape-conditioned radiance fields from a si n- gle view. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08860, 2021. 1, 2

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Structu re- from-motion revisited

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structu re- from-motion revisited. In CVPR, pages 4104–4113, 2016. 4

    2016

  33. [41]

    Pixelwise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo

    Johannes L Sch¨ onberger, Enliang Zheng, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Marc Pollefeys. Pixelwise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo. In ECCV, pages 501–518. Springer, 2016. 4

    2016

  34. [42]

    Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view dif- fusion base model

    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 dif- fusion base model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15110, 2023. 1

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Grab: A dataset of whole-body human grasp- ing of objects

    Omid Taheri, Nima Ghorbani, Michael J Black, and Dim- itrios Tzionas. Grab: A dataset of whole-body human grasp- ing of objects. In ECCV, pages 581–600. Springer, 2020. 1

    2020

  36. [44]

    What do single-view 3d reconstruction networks learn? In CVPR, pages 3405–3414, 2019

    Maxim Tatarchenko, Stephan R Richter, Ren´ e Ranftl, Zhuwen Li, Vladlen Koltun, and Thomas Brox. What do single-view 3d reconstruction networks learn? In CVPR, pages 3405–3414, 2019. 2

    2019

  37. [45]

    Lion: Latent point dif- fusion models for 3d shape generation

    Arash V ahdat, Francis Williams, Zan Gojcic, Or Litany, Sanja Fidler, Karsten Kreis, et al. Lion: Latent point dif- fusion models for 3d shape generation. NIPS, 35:10021– 10039, 2022. 3

    2022

  38. [46]

    Few-shot generali za- tion for single-image 3d reconstruction via priors

    Bram Wallace and Bharath Hariharan. Few-shot generali za- tion for single-image 3d reconstruction via priors. In ICCV, pages 3818–3827, 2019. 1

    2019

  39. [47]

    Recovering surface shape and orientat ion from texture

    Andrew P Witkin. Recovering surface shape and orientat ion from texture. Artificial intelligence , 17(1-3):17–45, 1981. 2

    1981

  40. [48]

    Pix2vox++: Multi-scale context- aware 3d object reconstruction from single and multiple im- ages

    Haozhe Xie, Hongxun Yao, Shengping Zhang, Shangchen Zhou, and Wenxiu Sun. Pix2vox++: Multi-scale context- aware 3d object reconstruction from single and multiple im- ages. IJCV, 128(12):2919–2935, 2020. 2

    2020

  41. [49]

    Bayesian diffusion models for 3d shape reconstruction

    Haiyang Xu, Y u Lei, Zeyuan Chen, Xiang Zhang, Y ue Zhao, Yilin Wang, and Zhuowen Tu. Bayesian diffusion models for 3d shape reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 10628–10638, 2024. 2, 3, 4

    2024

  42. [50]

    pixelnerf: Neural radiance fields from one or few images

    Alex Y u, Vickie Ye, Matthew Tancik, and Angjoo Kanazawa. pixelnerf: Neural radiance fields from one or few images. In CVPR, pages 4578–4587, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  43. [51]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In ICCV, pages 3836–3847, 2023. 5, 1, 3

    2023

  44. [52]

    3d shape genera- tion and completion through point-voxel diffusion

    Linqi Zhou, Yilun Du, and Jiajun Wu. 3d shape genera- tion and completion through point-voxel diffusion. In ICCV, pages 5826–5835, 2021. 6

    2021

  45. [53]

    3d shape genera- tion and completion through point-voxel diffusion

    Linqi Zhou, Yilun Du, and Jiajun Wu. 3d shape genera- tion and completion through point-voxel diffusion. In ICCV, pages 5826–5835, 2021. 3 Consistency Diffusion Models for Single-Image 3D Reconstr uction with Priors Supplementary Material

    2021

  46. [54]

    Ta- ble 7 presents an ablation study evaluating different global feature conditioning methods

    More Ablation Study Results Image and T ext Embedding for Global Features. Ta- ble 7 presents an ablation study evaluating different global feature conditioning methods. We investigate two com- bination strategies: concatenation ( ⊕) and cross-attention (⊗). The results show t...

  47. [55]

    5, which introduces the reduced- variance variational bound for diffusion models within the context of our reverse process, is presented following Eq

    Function Derivation The derivation of Eq. 5, which introduces the reduced- variance variational bound for diffusion models within the context of our reverse process, is presented following Eq. 8. Conditions F1 ↑ 1 1 GT image 0.428 2 1 GT image and 3 ControlNet images 0.423 3 1...

  48. [56]

    6 presents additional visual results

    Visual Comparison on Co3D Dataset Fig. 6 presents additional visual results. We compare our method with PC 2 on the Co3D dataset. The first column on the left displays the input images. By comparing from two different viewpoints, it is intuitively evident that PC 2’s re- constr...

  49. [57]

    By feeding the image into OpenCLIP [ 5], we obtain both text and image embeddings

    Global priors Knowledge Embedding In this work, we try to extract global priors from a single 2D image. By feeding the image into OpenCLIP [ 5], we obtain both text and image embeddings. We then employ a multi-scale cross-attention mechanism, inspired by the ControlNet archite...

  50. [58]

    teddybear

    Local priors Knowledge Embedding On the local feature level, we experiment with using Zero123++ [ 42] to generate images of the target object from various angles based on a single 2D image. The aim is to project features from these multi-view images onto the point cloud after ...

  51. [59]

    Directly Introduce 2D Priors Based on our experiments with both global and local priors, we conclude that the key to effectively incorporating 2D pri- ors is to stack these priors directly onto the single input im - age. Therefore, we straightforwardly follow the training a p-...

  52. [60]

    Subsequently, we used the generated 2D images to assign features to the initial point cloud x0. As a result, on average, 97% of the points in x0 now have initial features, significantly address- ing the issue of many points having zero initial features due to occlusions from a ...

Pith tools

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