Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

DreamScene: 3D Gaussian-based End-to-end Text-to-3D Scene Generation

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DreamScene claims to turn text prompts into editable, consistent 3D scenes in about 1.5 hours using LLM-planned layouts and 3D Gaussian generation.

desk verdict A credible engineering pipeline for text-to-3D scenes, but the AI planner is load-bearing and unevaluated, and the experimental rigor lags the strength of the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13985 v2 pith:PSDZ6KV6 submitted 2025-07-18 cs.CV

Haoran Li , Yuli Tian , Kun Lan , Yong Liao , Lin Wang , Pan Hui , Peng Yuan Zhou This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords text-to-3Dscenegeneration3DGaussianSplattingplanningwithLLMconstraintgraphlayoutdiffusionscoredistillationediting4Dnovelviewconsistency
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

DreamScene sets out to prove that a complete 3D scene can be generated from a single text prompt or a multi-turn dialogue automatically, without hand-authored layouts, and finished in about an hour and a half. The framework puts a large language model in charge of scene planning: it lists the objects, estimates their real-world sizes, assigns each to a region of the scene, and states pairwise spatial relations. A graph-based placement algorithm turns those constraints into a collision-free layout, each object is synthesized as 3D Gaussians by Formation Pattern Sampling, and a progressive camera schedule builds the surrounding environment while keeping the whole scene consistent under exploration-style viewpoints. The paper's claim is that this end-to-end design beats prior text-to-3D scene methods on generation quality, consistency, and editability, while matching the fastest comparison method in runtime. If the claim holds, it would lower the cost of producing 3D content for games, film, and interactive environments from a sentence into an editable scene.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the hybrid constraint graph with the graph-based constraint placement (GCP) algorithm on the planning side, and Formation Pattern Sampling (FPS) on the generation side. GCP starts from a selected anchor object, propagates directional constraints breadth-first, filters candidate grid positions by axis-aligned bounding-box collisions, and assigns fallback poses to leftovers; its output is an affine transform $(s_i, r_i, t_i)$ per object. FPS replaces single-timestep score distillation with a multi-timestep classifier-score gradient, aggregating $\epsilon_\phi(x_{t_i}; y, t_i) - \epsilon_\phi(x_{t_i}; \varnothing, t_i)$ over $m$ intervals; it prunes Gaussians by a score based on volume and distance to the rendering plane, and then switches to a reconstruction loss $L_{\mathrm{rec}}$ on denoised pseudo-GT images. The appendix derives the MTS gradient as a trajectory-alignment term, connecting it to two-stage 2D diffusion editing. A three-stage camera schedule then refines surroundings, ground, and the full scene, and because each object is a separate set of Gaussians under its own affine transform, editing reduces to changing those parameters or re-running the planner.

What would settle it

Take 100 open-ended scene prompts, run only the planning module, and have independent raters judge whether the inferred object list, sizes, and spatial relations are physically plausible for the stated scene; if a substantial fraction are implausible, the end-to-end claim fails even if object synthesis itself is strong. A sharper variant is to feed a prompt that is grammatical but physically impossible and check whether the system either rejects it or produces a visibly nonsensical layout.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the contribution is a single pipeline with four linked stages. A GPT-4 agent performs scene decomposition and layout-constraint inference, producing a hybrid constraint graph with object-to-scene region anchors and object-to-object relations; the graph-based constraint placement algorithm then computes scales, rotations, and translations that are collision-free and physically plausible. Each object is generated separately with Formation Pattern Sampling, which aggregates information from multiple diffusion timesteps per optimization step (multi-timestep sampling), prunes low-contribution 3D Gaussians, and finishes textures with a fast reconstruction loss. Objects are inserted under their planned affine transforms, and a three-step progressive camera sampling strategy shapes the environment so that the final scene does not exhibit the repeated duplicated objects that plague earlier methods. The paper reports that this yields better user-study ratings than Text2Room, Text2NeRF, ProlificDreamer, and Set-the-Scene on quality, consistency, and rationality, in roughly 1.5 hours, and that the same object-level separation supports relocation, appearance editing, and temporal 4D motion.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the large language model reliably infers correct object categories, real-world sizes, region anchors, and pairwise spatial relations from open-ended prompts or dialogue; if those guesses are implausible, the layout, object composition, and environment generation inherit the error and the scene becomes invalid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Open-ended text or dialogue becomes a complete 3D scene in roughly 1.5 hours with no manual layout, because the planner and GCP replace hand-placed object trajectories.
  • Scene-wide consistency under exploratory cameras should follow; the paper reports that the multi-head duplication artifact is largely removed by pre-positioning objects before environment generation.
  • Objects remain separable after generation, so scenes can be edited by moving, adding, removing, or restyling individual components without regenerating the whole scene.
  • 4D animation is available as time-dependent affine transforms on selected objects, so the same scene extends to motion and virtual-environment simulation.
  • The FPS object generator alone competes with dedicated text-to-3D object methods, reaching higher R-Precision than DreamTime after the same iteration count, so the benefit is not only at scene level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural follow-up is to score the LLM's object lists, sizes, and relations on their own, independently of the final render, because planning errors would propagate into layout, environment, and editing.
  • Because the MTS derivation treats the gradient as trajectory alignment, the same mechanism should transfer to other diffusion backbones or other explicit 3D representations, though the paper demonstrates it only with 3D Gaussians and one 2D diffusion model.
  • The editing design suggests a conversational workflow in which each user request re-runs only the planner or appearance stage rather than the whole pipeline, which would make incremental scene revision much cheaper.
  • A reader could also test the causal role of planning by replacing the LLM with fixed hand-designed layouts on the same prompts: if final quality drops, the commonsense planning is what carries the scene-level claims.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. DreamScene proposes an end-to-end text/dialogue-to-3D-scene framework built on 3D Gaussian Splatting. A GPT-4 agent parses user input into object categories, counts, sizes, appearance prompts, region anchors, and pairwise spatial relations, which are organized into a hybrid constraint graph. A graph-based constraint placement (GCP) algorithm converts these constraints into a collision-free layout. Objects are generated by Formation Pattern Sampling (FPS), which combines multi-timestep sampling (MTS), 3D Gaussian filtering, and a reconstructive generation stage. A progressive three-step camera sampling strategy then optimizes the surrounding environment, and the representation supports object relocation, appearance editing, and 4D temporal motion. Experiments compare DreamScene with Text2Room, Text2NeRF, ProlificDreamer, Set-the-Scene, and several text-to-3D baselines using qualitative comparisons, a 100-participant user study over five scenes, and CLIP R-Precision on an object-level benchmark.

Significance. If the stated claims hold, DreamScene would be a practical step toward automated, open-domain text-to-3D scene generation with editable object-level structure. The pipeline's explicit separation of planning, object generation, and composition is a sensible design, and the use of 3D Gaussians enables lightweight editing operations. The paper includes a user study, quantitative R-Precision results, ablation studies for time-window strategies and Gaussian filtering, and a public demo/code link, which are positive features. The main caveat is that the evaluation is narrow: it rests on five curated scenes and lacks statistical validation, and the GPT-4-based planner — the module that carries the automation claim — is never evaluated directly. The MTS theoretical explanation in Appendix A is also presented as a derivation but relies on an acknowledged approximation. These issues are correctable and do not, in my assessment, invalidate the core system, but they currently prevent the strong comparative claims from being fully supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. V-B, Tables I and II] The quantitative evidence is too thin to support the claim that DreamScene surpasses prior methods in quality, consistency, and flexibility. The user study covers five scenes, and no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for the mean ratings in Table I. The R-Precision evaluation in Table II is limited to an object-level comparison against DreamTime and is not a scene-level evaluation against the scene-generation baselines used in the user study. I recommend reporting per-scene results with variance measures, running significance tests, and adding a scene-level quantitative metric (or an extended R-Precision study that includes baseline scene-generation methods).
  2. [Sec. IV-A and Algorithm 1] The automation claim depends on the GPT-4 planner, but the paper provides no validation of that module. There are no reported metrics for JSON parse success, object-category accuracy, size plausibility, region-anchor agreement, pairwise-relation satisfaction, or collision rate. Algorithm 1 silently falls back to heuristic placement (lines 22-24) when constraints cannot be satisfied, so planner errors can propagate into object generation and environment optimization without detection. I ask for a dedicated planning evaluation, including failure-rate analysis on a broader set of prompts and dialogues, and ideally an automatic rejection or re-planning mechanism for invalid layouts.
  3. [Sec. V-B, Table I] The timing comparison appears to measure only DreamScene's environment-generation stage while comparing it against the full pipelines of the baseline methods. The text says 'we calculate the generation time of our environment generation stage' because the baselines cannot generate objects independently, but the headline 'Ours (~1.5h)' is then presented as a full pipeline time in Figs. 8 and 9. This is misleading. Please report end-to-end time including scene planning, object generation, composition, and environment optimization, and state clearly what portion of the 1.5 hours corresponds to each stage.
  4. [Appendix A, Eqs. (21)-(22)] The theoretical derivation of MTS rests on the approximation in Eq. (21), εθ(x_{t_{i+1}}, t_{i+1}, y, ∅) ≈ εθ(x_{t_i}, t_i, y, ∅), whose error is acknowledged to grow with ΔT. This makes the subsequent proportionality in Eq. (22) approximate rather than exact, and the claim that MTS is 'not a heuristic mechanism' is stronger than the derivation supports. The connection to 2D editing is also analogical. I recommend presenting this as a motivating analysis with a bound or empirical validation of the approximation, or softening the claim accordingly.
  5. [Sec. IV-B2, Eq. (12) and Fig. 13] The 3D Gaussian filtering criterion in Eq. (12) is introduced as a heuristic score, but the threshold and the compression ratio η used in Algorithm 2 are not specified in the implementation details. The ablation in Fig. 13 reports memory reductions but no quantitative quality metrics for the generation task, so the statement that compression causes 'no significant loss of quality' is not supported. Please provide the chosen threshold/η values and quantitative quality measurements (e.g., PSNR, SSIM, or CLIP score) for the generation and reconstruction cases.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. IV-B] The sentence 'Details are presented in the supplementary material. Details are presented in the supplementary material.' is duplicated.
  2. [Sec. IV-D] In 'Appearance Modification', the phrase 'span both texture geometry refinements' appears to be missing a word; it should likely read 'texture and geometry refinements'.
  3. [Sec. IV-C] The typo 'sreps' should be 'steps' in the sentence 'Building on the 3D consistency achieved in earlier two sreps'.
  4. [Appendix B] The layout prompt template always includes the CORNER relation, while Sec. IV-A2 states that outdoor scenes exclude the corner zone. Please reconcile the template and the method description.
  5. [Sec. IV-A3 and Algorithm 1] The GCP algorithm does not specify a termination mechanism for cyclic or contradictory relation sets, and the fallback placement heuristics are described only as 'heuristically'. A brief description of how cycles are handled would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Eq. (9) and Algorithm 2] The notation T_iter^end is ambiguous; Algorithm 2 defines T_end = (1 - iter/iterm) × 1000, but the main text should state this explicitly when introducing Eq. (9).
  7. [Eq. (12)] The notation maxV(r_j) is not defined precisely; it should be stated whether this is the maximum volume among Gaussians on ray r_j or the maximum over all rays.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DreamScene's pipeline is benchmarked externally and its proposed losses are defined independently of the reported results.

full rationale

DreamScene's derivation chain is not circular. The scene-planning module uses GPT-4 as an external knowledge source, and the GCP algorithm applies the inferred anchors and relations as soft constraints rather than fitting a parameter to a target output. FPS/MTS is presented as a proposed objective, not as a quantity fitted to the evaluation: Eq. 11 defines a multi-timestep classifier-score distillation loss, and Appendix A independently connects this loss to DDIM-inversion trajectory discrepancies through standard diffusion equations; this is an explanatory link, not a restatement of the paper's conclusions. The 'theoretical explanation' does not smuggle the result into the assumptions because the derivation begins from existing DDIM inversion and denoising formulas. Similarly, the camera-sampling and editing modules are algorithmic proposals evaluated by user studies and CLIP R-Precision against external baselines, so the reported metrics are not defined in terms of the method's own outputs. The ECCV/TPAMI self-citation [24] is used to position the work as an extension while the method is fully described in the paper, so it is not load-bearing. The absence of planning-accuracy metrics for the GPT-4 module is a robustness and validation gap, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard components (3DGS, diffusion distillation, LLM planning) and on several hand-chosen hyperparameters, the most load-bearing being the unspecified weighting w(t_i) and the Gaussian-filtering threshold. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • m = 4
    Number of timestep intervals in MTS (Eq. 9 and Implementation Details); chosen by authors to balance quality and cost, not derived from data.
  • T_end annealing window = T_end = (1 - iter/iterm) * 1000
    Linear decay of the maximum timestep in MTS (Eq. 9, Algorithm 2); the 1000 maximum and the decay form are hand-selected, and the ablation in Fig. 12 indicates this strategy beats fixed maxstep but is not derived.
  • Delta T step size = 50 to 100
    Set to reduce approximation error while limiting computational cost (Appendix A and Fig. 19); the authors state that smaller Delta T improves quality.
  • Weighting w(t_i) = unspecified
    Appears in Eq. 11 and Eq. 15 but no functional form or value is given, making the exact gradient weight a free choice needed for replication.
  • Gaussian filtering threshold and eta = unspecified
    Algorithm 2 deletes the last eta 3D Gaussians; both eta and the score threshold are not specified in the paper despite large reported memory reductions.
  • Camera sampling grid and radii = unspecified
    The candidate position grid for GCP and the concentric circle radii and directions for outdoor camera sampling are described qualitatively in Sec. IV-A and IV-C but not quantified.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math DDIM inversion (Eq. 10) accurately maps rendered images to the latent trajectory used for multi-timestep supervision.
    The MTS derivation in Appendix A and the generation loop in Algorithm 2 rely on DDIM inversion as a faithful noising operator; if the latents drift, the estimated pseudo-ground-truth is biased.
  • domain assumption The GPT-4 agent returns object categories, real-world sizes, and spatial relations that reflect real-world physics and user intent.
    Scene Planning (Sec. IV-A) uses these outputs to build the constraint graph and layout; errors propagate to placement and environment generation and are not otherwise corrected.
  • domain assumption A pre-trained 2D text-to-image diffusion model (Stable Diffusion 2.1) provides valid gradients for optimizing 3D Gaussian geometry via the classifier score across multiple timesteps.
    FPS and SDS-style distillation assume the 2D model can supervise 3D shape; this is the standard SDS assumption inherited from DreamFusion [1].
  • ad hoc to paper The 3D Gaussian filtering score (Eq. 12), based on inverse-square distance and volume, identifies Gaussians that can be safely discarded without degrading quality.
    The score is proposed for this paper; no theorem or external benchmark guarantees that discarding low-scored Gaussians preserves perceptual quality, and the ablation only shows two examples.
  • domain assumption The unified test camera trajectory (linear sweeps plus a circle) is an appropriate probe of scene-wide consistency and does not unfairly disadvantage baselines.
    All methods are evaluated on this trajectory in Section V-A, but baselines were trained with their own camera distributions, so the comparison may conflate training-test distribution shift with intrinsic method quality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DreamScene: 3D Gaussian-based End-to-end Text-to-3D Scene Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSDZ6KV6

@misc{pith2026250713985,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DreamScene: 3D Gaussian-based End-to-end Text-to-3D Scene Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSDZ6KV6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13985}
}
read the original abstract

Generating 3D scenes from natural language holds great promise for applications in gaming, film, and design. However, existing methods struggle with automation, 3D consistency, and fine-grained control. We present DreamScene, an end-to-end framework for high-quality and editable 3D scene generation from text or dialogue. DreamScene begins with a scene planning module, where a GPT-4 agent infers object semantics and spatial constraints to construct a hybrid graph. A graph-based placement algorithm then produces a structured, collision-free layout. Based on this layout, Formation Pattern Sampling (FPS) generates object geometry using multi-timestep sampling and reconstructive optimization, enabling fast and realistic synthesis. To ensure global consistent, DreamScene employs a progressive camera sampling strategy tailored to both indoor and outdoor settings. Finally, the system supports fine-grained scene editing, including object movement, appearance changes, and 4D dynamic motion. Experiments demonstrate that DreamScene surpasses prior methods in quality, consistency, and flexibility, offering a practical solution for open-domain 3D content creation. Code and demos are available at https://jahnsonblack.github.io/DreamScene-Full/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13985 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DreamScene exhibits significant advantages compared with current state-of-the-art text-to-3D scene generation methods. Text2Room [22] and Set￾the-Scene [21] require complex user-specified object placement. Text2Room, Text2NeRF [25] and many inpainting-based methods suffer from low scene consistency, producing incoherent geometry across camera poses. GALA3D [32], CG3D [33] generate scenes with low visual quality and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our framework enables automatic 3D scene generation from natural language, supporting both direct descriptions and interactive dialogues. A GPT-4 agent first performs scene decomposition by inferring object semantics, layout constraints, and spatial relations, and constructs a constraint graph to plan collision-free object placements. Each object is generated using Formation Pattern Sampling (FPS), which integrates … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the Scene Planning process. Given either an open-ended prompt or an interactive dialogue, a GPT-4 agent infers object categories, real-world sizes, textual prompts, spatial placements, and inter-object relations. These constraints are used to plan the layout through a constraint graph and GCP algorithm. The resulting arrangement provides a physically plausible and semantically coherent layout that suppor… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: For each object, it predicts the category, count, real [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the generation quality between the ECCV version and the TPAMI version of DreamScene. shape accuracy, while timesteps 400 to 600 and 600 to 800 enrich the semantic context. However, by the 1000-th iteration for the cooker, we note that the shape already en…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic diagram of camera sampling in environment generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Formation Pattern Sampling. (a)Multi-timestep Sampling. At varying timesteps, the 2D text-to-image diffusion model provides different informa￾tion(represented by the pseudo-GT xˆ t 0 ) obtained from xt in a single-step by Eq. 8 in LucidDreamer [8]. (b)3D Gaussian Filte…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Diversity of layout generation. as NTI [39] and PTI [53] gradually align the latents in the diffusion process to obtain accurate noising and denoising tra￾jectory for the input image. Then, during the editing stage, they inject the target prompt yedit into the denoisin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual consistency and generation quality under diverse scene-wide camera poses in the outdoor scenes. V. EXPERIMENT Implementation Details. We employ GPT-4 [30] as our Large Language Model(LLM) for decomposing scene prompts and Point-E [11] for generating initial spar…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual consistency and generation quality under diverse scene-wide camera poses in the indoor scenes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison with baselines in text-to-3D object generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Ablation results of time window strategy in MTS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: DreamScene editing results. (a) shows object-level edits, including relocation, addition, and removal. (b) demonstrates style modifications applied to both objects and environments. (c) presents the 4D generation results from multiple viewpoints. TABLE I QUANTITATIVE …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ablation results of 3D Gaussian filtering algorithm in reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The ablation results of various camera sampling strategies. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Prompt template for object information with GPT-4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Prompt template for layout information with GPT-4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Prompt template for objects constraints with GPT-4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The ablation results of different sampling strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The ablation results of different timestep size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_19.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. GaussianGPT: Towards Autoregressive 3D Gaussian Scene Generation

    cs.CV 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A causal transformer with 3D RoPE generates vector-quantized 3D Gaussian latent grids autoregressively, enabling unconditional synthesis, completion, and open-ended outpainting of indoor scenes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    B. Poole, A. Jain, J. T. Barron, and B. Mildenhall, “Dreamfusion: Text- to-3d using 2d diffusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Magic3d: High-resolution text-to- 3d content creation,

    C.-H. Lin, J. Gao, L. Tang, T. Takikawa, X. Zeng, X. Huang, K. Kreis, S. Fidler, M.-Y . Liu, and T.-Y . Lin, “Magic3d: High-resolution text-to- 3d content creation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 300–309

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Fantasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high-quality text-to-3d content creation,

    R. Chen, Y . Chen, N. Jiao, and K. Jia, “Fantasia3d: Disentangling geometry and appearance for high-quality text-to-3d content creation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13873 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

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

    R. Liu, R. Wu, B. Van Hoorick, P. Tokmakov, S. Zakharov, and C. V on- drick, “Zero-1-to-3: Zero-shot one image to 3d object,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 9298–9309

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Latent-nerf for shape-guided generation of 3d shapes and textures,

    G. Metzer, E. Richardson, O. Patashnik, R. Giryes, and D. Cohen-Or, “Latent-nerf for shape-guided generation of 3d shapes and textures,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 12 663–12 673

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Dreamtime: An improved optimization strategy for text-to-3d content creation,

    Y . Huang, J. Wang, Y . Shi, X. Qi, Z.-J. Zha, and L. Zhang, “Dreamtime: An improved optimization strategy for text-to-3d content creation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12422, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Text-to- 3d with classifier score distillation,

    X. Yu, Y .-C. Guo, Y . Li, D. Liang, S.-H. Zhang, and X. Qi, “Text-to- 3d with classifier score distillation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19415 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Luciddreamer: Towards high-fidelity text-to-3d generation via interval score matching,

    Y . Liang, X. Yang, J. Lin, H. Li, X. Xu, and Y . Chen, “Luciddreamer: Towards high-fidelity text-to-3d generation via interval score matching,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11284 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Dreamgaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for efficient 3d content creation,

    J. Tang, J. Ren, H. Zhou, Z. Liu, and G. Zeng, “Dreamgaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for efficient 3d content creation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16653, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Sweetdreamer: Aligning geo- metric priors in 2d diffusion for consistent text-to-3d,

    W. Li, R. Chen, X. Chen, and P. Tan, “Sweetdreamer: Aligning geo- metric priors in 2d diffusion for consistent text-to-3d,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02596, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

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

    A. Nichol, H. Jun, P. Dhariwal, P. Mishkin, and M. Chen, “Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Shap-e: Generating conditional 3d implicit functions,

    H. Jun and A. Nichol, “Shap-e: Generating conditional 3d implicit functions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents,

    A. Ramesh, P. Dhariwal, A. Nichol, C. Chu, and M. Chen, “Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 3, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

    R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10 684–10 695

    2022

  7. [15]

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

    C. Saharia, W. Chan, S. Saxena, L. Li, J. Whang, E. L. Denton, K. Ghasemipour, R. Gontijo Lopes, B. Karagol Ayan, T. Salimans et al., “Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, ...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape rep- resentation,

    J. J. Park, P. Florence, J. Straub, R. Newcombe, and S. Lovegrove, “Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape rep- resentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 165–174

    2019

  10. [18]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 42, no. 4, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,

    T. M ¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Deep marching tetrahedra: a hybrid representation for high-resolution 3d shape synthe- sis,

    T. Shen, J. Gao, K. Yin, M.-Y . Liu, and S. Fidler, “Deep marching tetrahedra: a hybrid representation for high-resolution 3d shape synthe- sis,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 6087–6101, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Set-the-scene: Global-local training for generating controllable nerf scenes,

    D. Cohen-Bar, E. Richardson, G. Metzer, R. Giryes, and D. Cohen- Or, “Set-the-scene: Global-local training for generating controllable nerf scenes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13450 , 2023. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE 14

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Text2room: Extracting textured 3d meshes from 2d text-to-image models,

    L. H ¨ollein, A. Cao, A. Owens, J. Johnson, and M. Nießner, “Text2room: Extracting textured 3d meshes from 2d text-to-image models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11989, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Text2immersion: Generative immersive scene with 3d gaussians,

    H. Ouyang, K. Heal, S. Lombardi, and T. Sun, “Text2immersion: Generative immersive scene with 3d gaussians,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09242, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Dreamscene: 3d gaussian-based text-to-3d scene generation via formation pattern sampling,

    H. Li, H. Shi, W. Zhang, W. Wu, Y . Liao, L. Wang, L.-h. Lee, and P. Zhou, “Dreamscene: 3d gaussian-based text-to-3d scene generation via formation pattern sampling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03575, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Text2nerf: Text-driven 3d scene generation with neural radiance fields,

    J. Zhang, X. Li, Z. Wan, C. Wang, and J. Liao, “Text2nerf: Text-driven 3d scene generation with neural radiance fields,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Compositional 3d scene generation using locally conditioned diffusion,

    R. Po and G. Wetzstein, “Compositional 3d scene generation using locally conditioned diffusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12218 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Prolific- dreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distillation,

    Z. Wang, C. Lu, Y . Wang, F. Bao, C. Li, H. Su, and J. Zhu, “Prolific- dreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distillation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Scenewiz3d: Towards text-guided 3d scene composition,

    Q. Zhang, C. Wang, A. Siarohin, P. Zhuang, Y . Xu, C. Yang, D. Lin, B. Zhou, S. Tulyakov, and H.-Y . Lee, “Scenewiz3d: Towards text-guided 3d scene composition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08885 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Componerf: Text-guided multi-object compositional nerf with editable 3d scene layout,

    Y . Lin, H. Bai, S. Li, H. Lu, X. Lin, H. Xiong, and L. Wang, “Componerf: Text-guided multi-object compositional nerf with editable 3d scene layout,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13843 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Gala3d: Towards text-to-3d complex scene generation via layout- guided generative gaussian splatting,

    X. Zhou, X. Ran, Y . Xiong, J. He, Z. Lin, Y . Wang, D. Sun, and M.-H. Yang, “Gala3d: Towards text-to-3d complex scene generation via layout- guided generative gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07207, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cg3d: Compositional generation for text-to-3d via gaussian splatting,

    A. Vilesov, P. Chari, and A. Kadambi, “Cg3d: Compositional generation for text-to-3d via gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17907 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    2d-guided 3d gaussian segmentation,

    K. Lan, H. Li, H. Shi, W. Wu, L. Wang, and Y . Liao, “2d-guided 3d gaussian segmentation,” in 2024 Asian Conference on Communication and Networks (ASIANComNet) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  27. [35]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti- aliasing neural radiance fields,

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, M. Tancik, P. Hedman, R. Martin-Brualla, and P. P. Srinivasan, “Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti- aliasing neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 5855–5864

    2021

  28. [36]

    Mvdream: Multi- view diffusion for 3d generation,

    Y . Shi, P. Wang, J. Ye, M. Long, K. Li, and X. Yang, “Mvdream: Multi- view diffusion for 3d generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16512 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Text-to-3d generation by 2d editing,

    H. Li, Y . Tian, Y . Wang, Y . Liao, L. Wang, Y . Wang, and P. Y . Zhou, “Text-to-3d generation by 2d editing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05929, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Gaussiandreamer: Fast generation from text to 3d gaussian splatting with point cloud priors,

    T. Yi, J. Fang, G. Wu, L. Xie, X. Zhang, W. Liu, Q. Tian, and X. Wang, “Gaussiandreamer: Fast generation from text to 3d gaussian splatting with point cloud priors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08529 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

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

    R. Mokady, A. Hertz, K. Aberman, Y . Pritch, and D. Cohen-Or, “Null- text inversion for editing real images using guided diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 6038–6047

    2023

  32. [40]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control,

    A. Hertz, R. Mokady, J. Tenenbaum, K. Aberman, Y . Pritch, and D. Cohen-Or, “Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Layout-your-3d: Control- lable and precise 3d generation with 2d blueprint,

    J. Zhou, X. Li, L. Qi, and M.-H. Yang, “Layout-your-3d: Control- lable and precise 3d generation with 2d blueprint,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15391, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Decompdreamer: Advancing structured 3d asset gen- eration with multi-object decomposition and gaussian splatting,

    U. Nath, R. Goel, R. Khurana, K. Min, M. Ollila, P. Turaga, V . Jampani, and T. Gowda, “Decompdreamer: Advancing structured 3d asset gen- eration with multi-object decomposition and gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11981, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Cc3d: Layout-conditioned generation of com- positional 3d scenes,

    S. Bahmani, J. J. Park, D. Paschalidou, X. Yan, G. Wetzstein, L. Guibas, and A. Tagliasacchi, “Cc3d: Layout-conditioned generation of com- positional 3d scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 7171–7181

    2023

  36. [44]

    Berfscene: Bev-conditioned equivariant radiance fields for infinite 3d scene genera- tion,

    Q. Zhang, Y . Xu, Y . Shen, B. Dai, B. Zhou, and C. Yang, “Berfscene: Bev-conditioned equivariant radiance fields for infinite 3d scene genera- tion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 6839–6849

    2024

  37. [45]

    Atiss: Autoregressive transformers for indoor scene synthesis,

    D. Paschalidou, A. Kar, M. Shugrina, K. Kreis, A. Geiger, and S. Fidler, “Atiss: Autoregressive transformers for indoor scene synthesis,” Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 12 013– 12 026, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Scene-llm: Extending language model for 3d visual understanding and reasoning,

    R. Fu, J. Liu, X. Chen, Y . Nie, and W. Xiong, “Scene-llm: Extending language model for 3d visual understanding and reasoning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11401, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    3d-llm: Injecting the 3d world into large language models,

    Y . Hong, H. Zhen, P. Chen, S. Zheng, Y . Du, Z. Chen, and C. Gan, “3d-llm: Injecting the 3d world into large language models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, pp. 20 482–20 494, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Root: Vlm based system for indoor scene understanding and beyond,

    Y . Wang, S.-Y . Chen, Z. Zhou, S. Li, H. Li, W. Zhou, and H. Li, “Root: Vlm based system for indoor scene understanding and beyond,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15714, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising diffusion implicit models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance,

    J. Ho and T. Salimans, “Classifier-free diffusion guidance,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A survey on 3d gaussian splatting,

    G. Chen and W. Wang, “A survey on 3d gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03890, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Consistent3d: Towards consistent high-fidelity text-to-3d generation with deterministic sampling prior,

    Z. Wu, P. Zhou, X. Yi, X. Yuan, and H. Zhang, “Consistent3d: Towards consistent high-fidelity text-to-3d generation with deterministic sampling prior,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 9892–9902

    2024

  45. [53]

    Prompt tuning inversion for text-driven image editing using diffusion models,

    W. Dong, S. Xue, X. Duan, and S. Han, “Prompt tuning inversion for text-driven image editing using diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 7430–7440

    2023

  46. [54]

    Lightgaussian: Unbounded 3d gaussian compression with 15x reduction and 200+ fps,

    Z. Fan, K. Wang, K. Wen, Z. Zhu, D. Xu, and Z. Wang, “Lightgaussian: Unbounded 3d gaussian compression with 15x reduction and 200+ fps,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17245 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Compact 3d gaussian representation for radiance field,

    J. C. Lee, D. Rho, X. Sun, J. H. Ko, and E. Park, “Compact 3d gaussian representation for radiance field,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13681 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Text2scene: Text-driven in- door scene stylization with part-aware details,

    I. Hwang, H. Kim, and Y . M. Kim, “Text2scene: Text-driven in- door scene stylization with part-aware details,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 1890–1899

    2023

  49. [57]

    3d- goi: 3d gan omni-inversion for multifaceted and multi-object editing,

    H. Li, L. Ma, H. Shi, Y . Hao, Y . Liao, L. Cheng, and P. Y . Zhou, “3d- goi: 3d gan omni-inversion for multifaceted and multi-object editing,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 390– 406

    2024

  50. [58]

    threestudio: A unified framework for 3d content generation,

    Y .-C. Guo, Y .-T. Liu, C. Wang, Z.-X. Zou, G. Luo, C.-H. Chen, Y .-P. Cao, and S.-H. Zhang, “threestudio: A unified framework for 3d content generation,” 2023. APPENDIX A THEORETICAL DERIVATION OF MULTI-TIMESTEP SAMPLING (MTS) Our Multi-timestep Sampling (MTS) strategy is gro...

    2023

  51. [59]

    Text-guided 2D image editing aims to modify an input image according to a target text prompt

    Connection to 2D Editing Next, we interpret xti − ˜xti from the perspective of 2D image editing using diffusion models. Text-guided 2D image editing aims to modify an input image according to a target text prompt. Existing diffusion- based 2D editing methods generally consist ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.