Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

MCMat: Multiview-Consistent and Physically Accurate PBR Material Generation

T0 review · 4 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 MCMat claims that a two-stage Diffusion Transformer pipeline—multi-view generation followed by UV-space refinement—produces multi-view-consistent, relightable PBR materials for arbitrary meshes and outperforms prior methods on FID, KID…

desk verdict A credible two-stage PBR texturing system with a genuinely new architecture, but the evaluation doesn't yet back the physical-accuracy claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14148 v1 pith:GQBJ5ML2 submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CV

Shenhao Zhu , Lingteng Qiu , Xiaodong Gu , Zhengyi Zhao , Chao Xu , Yuxiao He , Zhe Li , Xiaoguang Han
show 6 more authors
Yao Yao Xun Cao Siyu Zhu Weihao Yuan Zilong Dong Hao Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords PBRmaterialgenerationmulti-viewconsistencydiffusiontransformerphysically-basedrenderingtext-guidedtexturesynthesisrelightingUVrefinementalbedoroughnessmetallic
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 is trying to establish that high-quality, relightable PBR materials (albedo, roughness, metallic, and normal maps) for arbitrary 3D meshes can be generated automatically from a text prompt or a reference image, with both multi-view consistency and physical accuracy. It proposes a two-stage pipeline: a multi-view generation diffusion transformer that produces consistent material maps across views, and a refinement diffusion transformer that completes empty UV regions and raises resolution to 2K. The authors report state-of-the-art FID and KID scores and higher user ratings than prior methods on realism, fidelity, and relighting generalization. The practical motivation is that PBR materials can be relighted in new environments, whereas texture-only methods tend to bake lighting into the albedo map.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multi-branch Multi-View Generation DiT (MG-DiT), a diffusion transformer fine-tuned from a pretrained video DiT. It applies global attention across views to enforce 3D consistency, splits the first and last blocks into three branches for albedo, roughness, and metallic while sharing the middle blocks, and fuses reference image and text tokens through appearance self-attention. A second mechanism, the PBR-based diffusion loss, decodes predicted material maps and renders them with a Cook-Torrance PBR renderer under randomly sampled point lights, comparing against ground-truth renders under identical lighting to discourage baked-in shading. A third mechanism, the Material Refinement DiT (MR-DiT), takes the coarse back-projected UV map plus the normal map as conditions and performs inpainting and detail enhancement to produce 2K material maps.

What would settle it

Render two different material triples under the paper's random point-light distribution that produce nearly identical images; if the PBR loss cannot distinguish them, a held-out test can check whether predicted maps match measured ground-truth albedo, roughness, and metallic under fixed lighting. Any test set with known real material parameters settles it: relight with a novel environment map and compare per-pixel rendered output against ground-truth renders of the measured materials—if image-space agreement is good but material-map agreement is poor, the decomposition claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that combining a video-diffusion-transformer backbone with cross-frame global attention, a multi-branch design that separates albedo, roughness, and metallic, and a PBR-based diffusion loss yields materials that are both multi-view-consistent and lighting-independent enough to survive relighting. On a 70-model test set, the method reports FID 31.97 and KID 4.16e-3, ahead of the compared baselines, and user-study scores of 6.12, 5.94, and 6.33 on realism, fidelity, and generalization. The ablation studies attribute the gains to the PBR loss, which stops lighting from being baked into albedo, and to the UV refinement stage, which fixes empty regions and adds detail. The paper also claims that the pipeline generalizes from text-only or image-only inputs by supplying the missing modality through a ControlNet-generated reference image or an automatic caption.

Load-bearing premise

Physical accuracy rests on the assumption that the random point-light PBR render loss forces the predicted albedo, roughness, and metallic maps to be the true material decomposition, rather than just one of many triples that look identical when rendered, and that the dataset bakes used as ground truth are themselves correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Generated meshes can be relighted under new environment maps without the baked-in shading artifacts that texture-only methods produce.
  • Cross-view global attention yields consistent appearance across the whole object, including back-facing regions that serial inpainting methods often get wrong.
  • The same pipeline handles both text-only and image-only prompts by automatically supplying the missing modality.
  • UV-space refinement completes mesh regions missed by multi-view projection, so the final 2K material map is fully covered rather than partial.
  • If the reported FID, KID, and user-study numbers reproduce, this is the strongest published automatic PBR texturing system among the compared methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to evaluate the estimated albedo, roughness, and metallic maps directly against measured or scanned BRDF data under fixed known lighting; the paper compares image-space renders, so the material decomposition itself is not directly validated.
  • Because the PBR loss matches rendered images under random point-light configurations, the model may learn a statistically relightable decomposition without uniqueness guarantees; a different lighting distribution during training could shift the decomposition.
  • The two-stage recipe of coarse multi-view generation plus UV-space refinement transfers to other spatially varying surface properties such as emission, displacement, or subsurface scattering.
  • Cleaner material ground truth than dataset bakes with procedurally generated or measured materials could strengthen the physical-accuracy claim and reduce dataset-bias artifacts.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MCMat, a two-stage pipeline for generating PBR materials (albedo, roughness, metallic) for a given mesh from a text prompt or reference image. In the first stage, a Multi-View Generation DiT (MG-DiT), fine-tuned from a video diffusion transformer, produces multi-view-consistent material maps under normal-map geometric conditioning, using a multi-branch design and global cross-frame attention. A PBR-based diffusion loss (the standard V-loss plus an image-space rendering loss under random point lights) is introduced to encourage physical plausibility. In the second stage, a Material Refinement DiT (MR-DiT) inpaints empty UV regions and enhances detail, outputting 2K material maps. Experiments report FID/KID on 70 G-Objaverse models, a user study with 30 users on 20 meshes, ablations, and qualitative comparisons with TEXTure, Text2Tex, Paint3D, Fantasia3D, Paint-it, and FlashTex. The central claim is state-of-the-art texturing with physically accurate, relightable PBR materials.

Significance. If the claims hold, MCMat is a practically valuable step toward automatic generation of relightable PBR materials, an important problem for graphics and 3D content creation. The architectural choices are well motivated: adapting a video DiT with global attention for multi-view material generation, separating material branches before sharing features, and using a coarse UV map as a condition in the refinement stage are sensible and likely to help consistency and generalization. The PBR render loss is an interesting idea, and the two-stage design addresses a real coverage/detail trade-off. However, the paper does not provide code or proofs, and the quantitative evidence is thin: no direct material-map accuracy metrics, no relighting error numbers, no error bars, and a small in-distribution test set. The significance of the 'physically accurate' claim therefore currently rests on qualitative results and a user study, which is not sufficient for the strength of the abstract's assertion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (9)] The PBR loss compares one rendered image under a single random point-light configuration against the ground-truth render under the same lighting. For each surface point, the rendering equation maps three unknowns (albedo, roughness, metallic) to a single radiance value per light and view, so the loss does not by itself force a unique or physically correct material decomposition. The paper provides no direct evidence that the decomposition is correct: there is no UV-space MAE or similar comparison of predicted material maps to ground truth, no quantitative relighting error under novel environment illumination, and no test on measured real materials. Reporting such metrics is necessary to support the 'physically accurate' and 'significant advantages for relighting' claims made in the abstract and Sec. 5.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The 'ground truth values for albedo, roughness, and metallic' baked from G-Objaverse in Blender are not described in any detail. The reader cannot assess whether these bakes are physically valid PBR properties or simply the output of a particular shading/baking pipeline. Moreover, the 70-model test set in Sec. 4.2 is sampled from the same G-Objaverse source used for training, so the FID/KID numbers likely reflect distribution overlap rather than generalization. Please document the baking procedure (shader model, texture resolution, and any preprocessing) and add an out-of-distribution evaluation, e.g., on categories or mesh sources not present in training or on a small set of independently measured materials.
  3. [Table 1 and Sec. 4.2 (user study)] The FID/KID numbers are computed on 70 models with no error bars, no confidence intervals, and no significance tests, and the gaps over some baselines are small (e.g., KID 4.16 vs. 4.29 for FlashTex; FID 31.97 vs. 33.62 for Paint3D). The user study uses 30 users and 20 meshes but does not report how the meshes and prompts were selected, how difficult they were, or whether the score differences are statistically significant. I recommend reporting bootstrap confidence intervals for FID/KID and a paired significance test (or per-item error bars) for the user study, together with the selection criteria for the 20 meshes.
  4. [Limitations and Future Work] The paper's own Limitations section states that 'the inconsistent representation of material predictions, especially for text-based inputs, can reduce accuracy.' This directly qualifies the central claim of physically accurate materials. The paper should quantify this inconsistency (for example, region-level or view-level disagreement among predicted albedo/roughness/metallic maps) and show how it affects relighting quality, rather than leaving it as a qualitative caveat.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (5) and (8)] The same symbol appears on both sides of each equality (∥vt − vt∥ and ∥xPBR0 − xPBR0∥). Use a hat or subscript (e.g., v̂t, x̂PBR0) for the predicted quantities to make the loss definitions unambiguous.
  2. [Sec. 4.1 vs. Sec. 4.2] Sec. 4.1 says 12 viewpoints are randomly projected onto UVs, while Sec. 4.2 says 16 views are generated per model for the quantitative evaluation. Please reconcile these numbers or clarify which applies to which stage.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The phrase 'lightless yet high-quality 2K PBR materials' is confusing; presumably 'lighting-independent' or 'illumination-free' is intended. Also, the sentence 'We used a uniformly distributed ambient lighting setup to render the results for a fair comparison' is unclear about which renderer and lighting configuration was used for the baselines.
  4. [References] Several references are incomplete or contain formatting artifacts: Ref. [42] lists 'UC San, and Stanford University' in the author field, and Ref. [43] has a name fragment 'Bytedance Bytedance'. Please clean up all bibliography entries.
  5. [Sec. 4.2 (user study)] The sentence 'Each mesh was textured by both Paint3D and the baseline models' is ambiguous. Clarify which methods each participant actually saw, whether ordering was randomized, and whether participants viewed rotating 3D renders or fixed images for the lighting-generalization question.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported PBR material generation is trained with standard diffusion losses plus an auxiliary image-space render loss against external G-Objaverse data, and no claimed prediction reduces to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

MCMat's central pipeline is a two-stage learned system: MG-DiT generates multi-view albedo, roughness, and metallic latents from a CogVideoX-2B backbone (an external base model), and MR-DiT refines the resulting UV maps. The loss in Eq. (9), L = Lv + LPBR, combines the standard V-prediction loss (Eqs. 4-5) with an auxiliary Cook-Torrance render loss (Eq. 8) that compares predicted-material renders to ground-truth-material renders under the same random point lights. This is supervised learning against Blender-baked G-Objaverse materials, not a derivation in which the target is defined by the input: LPBR is an additional image-space supervision signal, and the evaluation metrics (FID/KID in Table 1) are computed on held-out G-Objaverse renderings rather than being minimized during training. The PBR loss's identifiability limits, for example that many (albedo, roughness, metallic) triples can produce similar rendered images and that no UV-space MAE against ground-truth material maps is reported, are a correctness and validation gap rather than a circularity, because the paper does not define physical accuracy as equivalent to Eq. (9). Self-citations appear (RichDreamer [36,37], VideoMV [58], GPLD3D [13], and [56,57]) but they supply datasets, baselines, or architectural inspiration; the core training signal comes from external data (G-Objaverse via [11] plus Blender bakes) and an external base model (CogVideoX-2B, [50]). No load-bearing step invokes a self-cited uniqueness theorem, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The limitations paragraph itself concedes inconsistent representation of material predictions, further indicating that the paper does not claim a formally forced decomposition. Therefore no step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs.

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

At training time the model is supervised end-to-end, so the central engineering claim is not a derivation. The free parameters are architectural and loss-design choices; the axioms are dataset correctness, transferability of the video prior, and sufficiency of the PBR render loss for lighting-albedo disentanglement. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of viewpoints = 12
    Chosen by hand for training and inference; affects multi-view coverage and consistency; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Random light configuration = 3-10 point lights, intensities 1-10
    Training-time sampling strategy for the PBR loss; hand-chosen range with no ablation on light count distribution.
  • CFG guidance scale and exponent = scale 6, exponent 5
    Inference hyperparameters chosen by hand for dynamic classifier-free guidance; not justified by analysis.
  • PBR loss weight = 1.0 (implicit, equal to V-loss)
    The total loss is written as Lv + LPBR with no weighting schedule; central to PBR loss effectiveness, but no ablation on the weight is given.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Cook-Torrance BRDF with Lambertian diffuse and microfacet specular accurately models real material appearance.
    Used in the PBR loss and relighting; a standard graphics model, not validated against measured materials in this paper.
  • domain assumption G-Objaverse rendered albedo, roughness, and metallic maps are correct ground truth.
    Training and evaluation assume these bakes define physically accurate materials; no manual validation or error analysis is reported (Sec. 4.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Random point light renders enforce lighting-albedo disentanglement.
    The paper claims random lighting reduces shadows and lighting effects embedded in albedo (Sec. 3.2), but provides no theoretical or empirical proof that the render-space loss uniquely determines material parameters.
  • domain assumption Video prior from CogVideoX-2B transfers to multi-view material maps.
    The architecture is fine-tuned from a billion-parameter video DiT; generalization claims depend on this transfer, which is not separately ablated (Sec. 3.1, Supp. A.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MCMat: Multiview-Consistent and Physically Accurate PBR Material Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQBJ5ML2

@misc{pith2026241214148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MCMat: Multiview-Consistent and Physically Accurate PBR Material Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQBJ5ML2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14148}
}
read the original abstract

Existing 2D methods utilize UNet-based diffusion models to generate multi-view physically-based rendering (PBR) maps but struggle with multi-view inconsistency, while some 3D methods directly generate UV maps, encountering generalization issues due to the limited 3D data. To address these problems, we propose a two-stage approach, including multi-view generation and UV materials refinement. In the generation stage, we adopt a Diffusion Transformer (DiT) model to generate PBR materials, where both the specially designed multi-branch DiT and reference-based DiT blocks adopt a global attention mechanism to promote feature interaction and fusion between different views, thereby improving multi-view consistency. In addition, we adopt a PBR-based diffusion loss to ensure that the generated materials align with realistic physical principles. In the refinement stage, we propose a material-refined DiT that performs inpainting in empty areas and enhances details in UV space. Except for the normal condition, this refinement also takes the material map from the generation stage as an additional condition to reduce the learning difficulty and improve generalization. Extensive experiments show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in texturing 3D objects with PBR materials and provides significant advantages for graphics relighting applications. Project Page: https://lingtengqiu.github.io/2024/MCMat/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A gallery of generated textured meshes. Our method effectively produces high-quality, lighting-independent, and highly faithful PBR materials across a wide range of objects from various categories, achieving highly realistic rendering results. Abstract Existing 2D methods utilize UNet-based diffusion models to generate multi-view physically-based rendering (PBR) maps but struggle with multi-view inconsistency, while… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our method consists of a generation stage and a refinement stage. In the generation stage, the Multi-View Generation DiT (MG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Structure of our Multi-View Generation DiT block. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons on PBR material generation conditioned on text prompt. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons on Relighting results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study. The proposed PBR-based Diffusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual results of Material Refinement: Albedo (top), Roughness (middle), and Metallic (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Environment maps for relighting 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual results of Multi-View material generation: Albedo (top), Roughness (middle), and Metallic (bottom) (Part 1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visual results of Multi-View material generation: Albedo (top), Roughness (middle), and Metallic (bottom) (Part 2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visual results of textured meshes using generated materials (Part 1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visual results of textured meshes using generated materials (Part 2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visual results of relighting 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blender - a 3d modelling and animation suite

    Blender Foundation. Blender - a 3d modelling and animation suite. https://www.blender.org/, 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-09. 5

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Mesh2tex: Generating mesh textures from image queries

    Alexey Bokhovkin, Shubham Tulsiani, and Angela Dai. Mesh2tex: Generating mesh textures from image queries

    work page

  3. [3]

    Video generation models as world simulators

    Tim Brooks, Bill Peebles, Connor Holmes, Will DePue, Yufei Guo, Li Jing, David Schnurr, Joe Taylor, Troy Luh- man, Eric Luhman, Clarence Ng, Ricky Wang, and Aditya Ramesh. Video generation models as world simulators

  4. [4]

    Texfusion: Synthesizing 3d textures with text-guided image diffusion models

    Tianshi Cao, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Nicholas Sharp, and Kangxue Yin. Texfusion: Synthesizing 3d textures with text-guided image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 4169–4181, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Text2tex: Text-driven texture synthesis via diffusion models

    Dave Zhenyu Chen, Yawar Siddiqui, Hsin-Ying Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, and Matthias Nießner. Text2tex: Text-driven texture synthesis via diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11396, 2023. 2, 3, 6

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Fan- tasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high- quality text-to-3d content creation

    Rui Chen, Yongwei Chen, Ningxin Jiao, and Kui Jia. Fan- tasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high- quality text-to-3d content creation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. 3, 6

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Tango: Text-driven photorealistic and robust 3d styliza- tion via lighting decomposition

    Yongwei Chen, Rui Chen, Jiabao Lei, Yabin Zhang, and Kui Jia. Tango: Text-driven photorealistic and robust 3d styliza- tion via lighting decomposition. 2022. 3

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Auv-net: Learning aligned uv maps for texture transfer and synthesis

    Zhiqin Chen, Kangxue Yin, and Sanja Fidler. Auv-net: Learning aligned uv maps for texture transfer and synthesis

    work page

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Tuvf: Learning generalizable texture uv radiance fields

    An-Chieh Cheng, Xueting Li, Sifei Liu, and Xiaolong Wang. Tuvf: Learning generalizable texture uv radiance fields. 3

  2. [10]

    R. L. Cook and K. E. Torrance. A reflectance model for computer graphics. ACM Trans. Graph., 1(1):7–24, 1982. 5, 12

    1982

  3. [11]

    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. 2022. 3, 6, 7

    2022

  4. [12]

    Flashtex: Fast relightable mesh texturing with lightcontrolnet, 2024

    Kangle Deng, Timothy Omernick, Alexander Weiss, Deva Ramanan, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Maneesh Agrawala. Flashtex: Fast relightable mesh texturing with lightcontrolnet, 2024. 3, 6, 7

    2024

  5. [13]

    Gpld3d: Latent diffusion of 3d shape generative models by enforc- ing geometric and physical priors

    Yuan Dong, Qi Zuo, Xiaodong Gu, Weihao Yuan, Zhengyi Zhao, Zilong Dong, Liefeng Bo, and Qixing Huang. Gpld3d: Latent diffusion of 3d shape generative models by enforc- ing geometric and physical priors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern R...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Get3d: A generative model of high quality 3d tex- tured shapes learned from images

    Jun Gao, Tianchang Shen, Zian Wang, Wenzheng Chen, Kangxue Yin, Daiqing Li, Or Litany, Zan Gojcic, and Sanja Fidler. Get3d: A generative model of high quality 3d tex- tured shapes learned from images

  7. [15]

    3dgen: Tri- plane latent diffusion for textured mesh generation

    Anchit Gupta, Wenhan Xiong, and Yixin Nie. 3dgen: Tri- plane latent diffusion for textured mesh generation. 3

  8. [16]

    Head360: Learning a parametric 3d full-head for free-view synthesis in 360 degrees

    Yuxiao He, Yiyu Zhuang, Yanwen Wang, Yao Yao, Siyu Zhu, Xiaoyu Li, Qi Zhang, Xun Cao, and Hao Zhu. Head360: Learning a parametric 3d full-head for free-view synthesis in 360 degrees. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2024. 3

    2024

  9. [17]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arxiv:2006.11239,

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models, 2020. 3

    2020

  11. [19]

    Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J

    Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, Jay Whang, Ruiqi Gao, Alexey Gritsenko, Diederik P. Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J. Fleet, and Tim Sali- mans. Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models, 2022. 3

    2022

  12. [20]

    Cogvideo: Large-scale pretraining for text-to-video generation via transformers, 2022

    Wenyi Hong, Ming Ding, Wendi Zheng, Xinghan Liu, and Jie Tang. Cogvideo: Large-scale pretraining for text-to-video generation via transformers, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  13. [21]

    Shap•e: Generating condi- tional 3d implicit functions

    Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. Shap•e: Generating condi- tional 3d implicit functions. 3

  14. [22]

    Alias- free generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Samuli Laine, Erik H ¨ark¨onen, Janne Hellsten, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Alias- free generative adversarial networks. Neural Information Processing Systems,Neural Information Processing Systems,

  15. [23]

    3D CoMPaT: Composition of Materi- als on Parts of 3D Things, page 110–127

    Yuchen Li, Ujjwal Upadhyay, Habib Slim, Ahmed Abdelre- heem, Arpit Prajapati, Suhail Pothigara, Peter Wonka, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 3D CoMPaT: Composition of Materi- als on Parts of 3D Things, page 110–127. 2022. 3

    2022

  16. [24]

    Common diffusion noise schedules and sample steps are flawed, 2024

    Shanchuan Lin, Bingchen Liu, Jiashi Li, and Xiao Yang. Common diffusion noise schedules and sample steps are flawed, 2024. 12

    2024

  17. [25]

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

    Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tok- makov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl V ondrick. Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object. CoRR, abs/2303.11328,

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Text-guided texturing by synchronized multi-view diffusion

    Yuxin Liu, Minshan Xie, Hanyuan Liu, and Tien-Tsin Wong. Text-guided texturing by synchronized multi-view diffusion. CoRR, abs/2311.12891, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models, 2024

    Yixin Liu, Kai Zhang, Yuan Li, Zhiling Yan, Chujie Gao, Ruoxi Chen, Zhengqing Yuan, Yue Huang, Hanchi Sun, Jian- feng Gao, Lifang He, and Lichao Sun. Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models, 2024. 4 9

    2024

  20. [28]

    Dpm-solver++: Fast solver for guided sam- pling of diffusion probabilistic models, 2023

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu. Dpm-solver++: Fast solver for guided sam- pling of diffusion probabilistic models, 2023. 12

    2023

  21. [29]

    Scalable 3d captioning with pretrained models

    Tiange Luo, Chris Rockwell, Honglak Lee, and Justin John- son. Scalable 3d captioning with pretrained models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07279, 2023. 3, 4

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    View selec- tion for 3d captioning via diffusion ranking

    Tiange Luo, Justin Johnson, and Honglak Lee. View selec- tion for 3d captioning via diffusion ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07984, 2024. 4

    2024

  23. [31]

    Latent-nerf for shape-guided genera- tion of 3d shapes and textures

    Gal Metzer, Elad Richardson, Or Patashnik, Raja Giryes, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Latent-nerf for shape-guided genera- tion of 3d shapes and textures. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Van- couver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023, pages 1266...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts

    Alex Nichol, Heewoo Jun, Prafulla Dhariwal, Pamela Mishkin, and Mark Chen. Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts. 2022. 3

    2022

  25. [33]

    Texture fields: Learning tex- ture representations in function space

    Michael Oechsle, Lars Mescheder, Michael Niemeyer, Thilo Strauss, and Andreas Geiger. Texture fields: Learning tex- ture representations in function space. arXiv: Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition,arXiv: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019. 3

    2019

  26. [34]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV) , page 4172–4182. IEEE,

    2023

  27. [35]

    Barron, and Ben Milden- hall

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenRe- view.net, 2023. 3

    2023

  28. [36]

    Richdreamer: A generalizable normal-depth diffusion model for detail richness in text-to- 3d

    Lingteng Qiu, Guanying Chen, Xiaodong Gu, Qi zuo, Mu- tian Xu, Yushuang Wu, Weihao Yuan, Zilong Dong, Liefeng Bo, and Xiaoguang Han. Richdreamer: A generalizable normal-depth diffusion model for detail richness in text-to- 3d. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16918, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Richdreamer: A generalizable normal-depth diffusion model for detail richness in text-to- 3d

    Lingteng Qiu, Guanying Chen, Xiaodong Gu, Qi Zuo, Mu- tian Xu, Yushuang Wu, Weihao Yuan, Zilong Dong, Liefeng Bo, and Xiaoguang Han. Richdreamer: A generalizable normal-depth diffusion model for detail richness in text-to- 3d. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- ...

  30. [38]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer, 2023. 12

    2023

  31. [39]

    Texture: Text-guided texturing of 3d shapes

    Elad Richardson, Gal Metzer, Yuval Alaluf, Raja Giryes, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Texture: Text-guided texturing of 3d shapes. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Ma- chinery. 2, 6

    2023

  32. [40]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bjorn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 2

    2022

  33. [41]

    Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models, 2022

    Tim Salimans and Jonathan Ho. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models, 2022. 5

    2022

  34. [42]

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

    Ruoxi Shi, Hansheng Chen, Zhuoyang Zhang, Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Xinyue Wei, Linghao Chen, Chong Zeng, Hao Su, UC San, and Stanford University. Zero123++: a single image to consistent multi-view diffusion base model. . 3

  35. [43]

    Mvdream: Multi- view diffusion for 3d generation

    Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Long Mai, Kejie Li, Xiao Yang, and Bytedance Bytedance. Mvdream: Multi- view diffusion for 3d generation. . 2

  36. [44]

    Texturify: Generating textures on 3d shape surfaces

    Yawar Siddiqui, Justus Thies, Fangchang Ma, Qi Shan, Matthias Nießner, and Angela Dai. Texturify: Generating textures on 3d shape surfaces. 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  37. [45]

    Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data, 2022

    Uriel Singer, Adam Polyak, Thomas Hayes, Xi Yin, Jie An, Songyang Zhang, Qiyuan Hu, Harry Yang, Oron Ashual, Oran Gafni, Devi Parikh, Sonal Gupta, and Yaniv Taigman. Make-a-video: Text-to-video generation without text-video data, 2022. 3

    2022

  38. [46]

    Mvdiffusion: Enabling holistic multi- view image generation with correspondence-aware diffusion

    Shitao Tang, Fuyang Zhang, Jiacheng Chen, Peng Wang, and Yasutaka Furukawa. Mvdiffusion: Enabling holistic multi- view image generation with correspondence-aware diffusion. 2

  39. [47]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need, 2017. 3

    2017

  40. [48]

    Phenaki: Variable length video generation from open domain textual description, 2022

    Ruben Villegas, Mohammad Babaeizadeh, Pieter-Jan Kin- dermans, Hernan Moraldo, Han Zhang, Mohammad Taghi Saffar, Santiago Castro, Julius Kunze, and Dumitru Erhan. Phenaki: Variable length video generation from open domain textual description, 2022. 3

    2022

  41. [49]

    Sv3d: Novel multi-view syn- thesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion, 2024

    Vikram V oleti, Chun-Han Yao, Mark Boss, Adam Letts, David Pankratz, Dmitry Tochilkin, Christian Laforte, Robin Rombach, and Varun Jampani. Sv3d: Novel multi-view syn- thesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion, 2024. 3

    2024

  42. [50]

    Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer, 2024

    Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang, Wenyi Hong, Xiaohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, Da Yin, Xiaotao Gu, Yuxuan Zhang, Weihan Wang, Yean Cheng, Ting Liu, Bin Xu, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models ...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Paint- it: Text-to-texture synthesis via deep convolutional texture map optimization and physically-based rendering

    Kim Youwang, Tae-Hyun Oh, and Gerard Pons-Moll. Paint- it: Text-to-texture synthesis via deep convolutional texture map optimization and physically-based rendering. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 3, 6

    2024

  44. [52]

    Learning texture generators for 3d shape collections from internet photo sets

    Rui Yu and Yue Dong. Learning texture generators for 3d shape collections from internet photo sets. 3

  45. [53]

    Texture generation on 3d meshes with point- uv diffusion

    Xin Yu, Peng Dai, Wenbo Li, Lan Ma, Zhengzhe Liu, and Xiaojuan Qi. Texture generation on 3d meshes with point- uv diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 4206–4216,

  46. [54]

    Paint3d: Paint anything 3d with lighting-less texture diffusion models,

    Xianfang Zeng, Xin Chen, Zhongqi Qi, Wen Liu, Zibo Zhao, Zhibin Wang, BIN FU, Yong Liu, and Gang Yu. Paint3d: Paint anything 3d with lighting-less texture diffusion models,

  47. [55]

    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 10 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 3836–3847, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6

    2023

  48. [56]

    An optimization framework to enforce multi-view consistency for texturing 3d meshes, 2024

    Zhengyi Zhao, Chen Song, Xiaodong Gu, Yuan Dong, Qi Zuo, Weihao Yuan, Liefeng Bo, Zilong Dong, and Qixing Huang. An optimization framework to enforce multi-view consistency for texturing 3d meshes, 2024. 2

    2024

  49. [57]

    High- fidelity 3d textured shapes generation by sparse encoding and adversarial decoding

    Qi Zuo, Xiaodong Gu, Yuan Dong, Zhengyi Zhao, Weihao Yuan, Lingteng Qiu, Liefeng Bo, and Zilong Dong. High- fidelity 3d textured shapes generation by sparse encoding and adversarial decoding. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 2024. 6, 7

    2024

  50. [58]

    Videomv: Consistent multi- view generation based on large video generative model,

    Qi Zuo, Xiaodong Gu, Lingteng Qiu, Yuan Dong, Zhengyi Zhao, Weihao Yuan, Rui Peng, Siyu Zhu, Zilong Dong, Liefeng Bo, and Qixing Huang. Videomv: Consistent multi- view generation based on large video generative model,

  51. [2024]

    3 11 MCMat: Multiview-Consistent and Physically Accurate PBR Material Generation Supplementary Material In the supplementary material, we first provide a detailed explanation of the implementation and relighting aspects of our method (Sec. A). Next, we present additional exper...

    1920

Pith tools

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