CMD: Controllable Multiview Diffusion for 3D Editing and Progressive Generation

Alla Sheffer; Congyi Zhang; Jialiang Chen; Peng Li; Suizhi Ma; Wei Xue; Wenhan Luo; Wenping Wang; Yike Guo; Yuan Liu

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

CMD: Controllable Multiview Diffusion for 3D Editing and Progressive Generation

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CMD edits a 3D mesh from a single edited view in about 20 seconds.

desk verdict Solid multiview-diffusion editing/generation system with a genuine 20-second capability, but the headline claim of local editing without changing other 3D parts is undercut by the paper's own admission that incremental reconstruction fails to preserve mesh topology. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07003 v2 pith:QGOB7KI6 submitted 2025-05-11 cs.CV

Peng Li , Suizhi Ma , Jialiang Chen , Yuan Liu , Congyi Zhang , Wei Xue , Wenhan Luo , Alla Sheffer

show 2 more authors

Wenping Wang Yike Guo

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords conditionalmultiviewdiffusion3Deditingprogressivegenerationimage-basedControlNetincrementalreconstructiontexturedmeshdifferentiablerendering

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

CMD is a generative pipeline that claims 3D editing can be reduced to editing one rendered image and then lifting that edit back onto a mesh. The paper proposes a conditional multiview diffusion model, CondMV, that takes multiview color and normal maps of the original mesh together with the edited view and produces new multiview color and normal maps in which only the edited region changes. Those maps feed an incremental differentiable-rendering reconstruction initialized with the original mesh, yielding an edited textured mesh in about 20 seconds. For complex assets, the same mechanism generates objects part by part, using a global condition to keep each step spatially consistent. The practical payoff is an editing loop that avoids full regeneration and does not require a user to specify 3D regions or hand-crafted proxies.

What carries the argument

CondMV is a cross-modality multiview diffusion model with a multiview ControlNet: a tiny convolutional network encodes the six-view color and normal conditions, zero-convolution layers inject them into the denoising UNet, and row-wise multiview attention keeps the generated views consistent. A global-condition variant concatenates the final target image as an extra latent channel to guide progressive generation. The other load-bearing piece is incremental reconstruction, which combines differentiable rasterization with continuous remeshing, initializes from the original mesh, and is supervised by normal, alpha-mask, and smoothness losses.

What would settle it

Render the original and edited meshes from the same fixed viewpoints and compare face normals, vertex positions, and Euler characteristic outside the edited region; if any face outside the edited area moves or the mesh's topology changes measurably, the "unchanged parts" claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that local 3D editing and progressive 3D generation can both be carried by a single conditional multiview diffusion model. Given a textured mesh, CMD renders color and normal maps from six fixed viewpoints as conditions. A user edits one view with an external image editor, and CondMV, a multiview diffusion backbone augmented with a multiview ControlNet, generates synchronized novel-view color and normal maps. The reconstruction stage then uses continuous remeshing with differentiable rendering, initialized from the original mesh, to produce the edited textured mesh. The paper argues that only the edited area changes in the generated multiviews, that the process needs no explicit 3D guidance, and that the same formulation enables progressive generation when the target is segmented into components and each step is conditioned on the previously generated parts plus a global layout image.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that incremental reconstruction, initialized with the original mesh and optimized by differentiable rendering, preserves the unedited geometry and topology while updating only the edited region; the paper states in its limitations that this premise can fail because random optimization does not maintain the original mesh topology.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A user can perform local geometry and texture edits by editing one rendered image, with the edited textured mesh produced in roughly 20 seconds rather than tens of minutes.
Sequential edits are possible: the output of one edit can serve as the input mesh for the next, supporting iterative refinement.
Complex, multi-part objects can be generated progressively by segmenting a target image and conditioning each step on previous components plus a global layout, improving fidelity over one-shot generation.
Because color and normal maps are generated jointly, geometry and appearance are edited simultaneously rather than in separate passes.
The method needs no manually specified 3D editing regions and no score-distillation optimization, unlike prior text-driven mesh editors.

Reading between the lines

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

If the reported topology drift is addressed by restricting remeshing to the edited faces, the method's "unchanged parts" promise would align with its actual output; the paper itself identifies this as future work.
The same conditioning scheme could in principle be applied to other reference modalities, such as multiple edited views, sketches, or depth maps, as long as they can be rasterized into the multiview condition tensor.
The global-condition trick suggests a natural extension to user-guided part-by-part modeling, where each progressive step is steered by a coarse 2D layout rather than a full target image.
Because the pipeline is fully image-based, its fidelity is bounded by the image editor's output; cleaning or constraining the edited view before diffusion would likely translate directly into cleaner 3D edits.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a well-engineered paper with a genuinely useful capability — image-based local 3D editing in ~20 seconds using a multiview ControlNet — and a progressive generation scheme that improves on Era3D. The central claim, however, is overstated: the paper says editing happens "without changing other 3D parts," but its own Sec. 5 and Fig. 16 admit the incremental reconstruction does not preserve mesh topology, and the editing evaluation has no geometry metric. That gap is real, not manufactured.

What's new: the MVControlNet extension, which conditions a multiview diffusion model on rendered color and normal maps rather than just text or a single image, is a natural but effective idea. The mix-dropping strategy for classifier-free guidance with multiple conditions is sensible. The progressive generation with a global conditioning image is a nice touch, and the quantitative gains over Era3D/InstantMesh/Unique3D in Table 4 look credible (Chamfer distance, volume IoU, LPIPS all improving). The 20s runtime is a genuine practical advantage over SDS-based editors. The paper also deserves credit for being transparent: the topology limitation is spelled out in the limitations section, not hidden.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the abstract and Table 1 promise "strictly follows the given image reference" and "without changing other 3D parts." The reconstruction stage optimizes Eq. (1) globally with continuous remeshing, so even if the generated maps are cleanly edited, the mesh can drift or retopologize outside the edit region. The authors acknowledge this but do not fix it for editing, while for progressive generation they do use a localized sphere update. That asymmetry is telling: the editing pipeline could adopt the same strategy but doesn't. Second, the editing quantitative evaluation is thin: CLIP similarity on 20 examples, no error bars, no geometry preservation measure. The user study (Table 5) helps, but it is preference, not fidelity. Third, the reliance on an external image editor is acknowledged but means the whole pipeline inherits its failure modes.

Is the paper worth a serious referee? Yes. The core diffusion idea is solid, the experiments on generation are reasonably convincing, and the limitation is at least stated. The right fix is to either recalibrate the claims or, better, add a mask or a localized reconstruction step and measure geometry preservation. As submitted, it's a conditional accept or borderline; the contribution is real but the headline does not match the evidence.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CMD, a two-stage framework for image-based local 3D editing and progressive 3D generation. In the first stage, a conditional multiview diffusion model (CondMV), built on Era3D and augmented with a multiview ControlNet, takes a set of rendered color/normal views of an existing mesh plus one edited target view and generates multiview color/normal maps that are claimed to change only in the edited region. In the second stage, the edited mesh is obtained by incremental reconstruction: differentiable rendering with continuous remeshing, initialized from the original mesh, minimizing a normal, alpha, and smoothness loss. For progressive generation, an input image is decomposed by SAM/CLIP/KMeans segmentation and parts are generated sequentially with a global condition. Experiments compare against SDS-based and multiview generation baselines, with CLIP similarity and a user study for editing and reconstruction metrics for generation.

Significance. If the central preservation claim held, CMD would be a practically significant contribution: it offers image-based, 3D-guidance-free local editing of textured meshes in about 20 seconds, and it demonstrates a progressive generation pipeline for complex multi-component assets. The paper has clear strengths: it fine-tunes both the backbone and the ControlNet rather than only the control branch, it constructs a large self-augmented training set with part-level manipulation and object composition, it provides ablations for MVControlNet and the global condition, and it reports a user study and efficiency benchmarks. The progressive generation results in Table 4 and Fig. 10 are encouraging. However, the editing contribution's load-bearing claim, that unedited 3D parts remain unchanged, is explicitly contradicted by the paper's own limitation statements, and the editing evaluation lacks quantitative geometry-preservation metrics.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 3 vs. Sec. 5, Fig. 16, and Appendix A.4] The abstract and Sec. 3.3 claim that CMD edits a 3D model "without changing other 3D parts," and Fig. 3 states that the generated multiview outputs remain unchanged outside the edited area. This claim is load-bearing for the editing contribution, but the paper's own limitation text contradicts it. Sec. 5 states that "our incremental reconstruction could not maintain the topology of the original mesh," Fig. 16 says the reconstruction "fails to preserve the original mesh topology due to random optimization," and Appendix A.4 repeats that fine-grain topology is not maintained. Because the reconstruction optimizes the global objective in Eq. (1) with continuous remeshing over the whole surface, without any mask restricting face splitting or merging to the edited region, this is not merely a topological technicality: unedited geometry can drift. The paper should either restrict the incremental optimization to the edited region (as is already done for progressive generation in Appendix A.2, where a sphere is initialized and only its topology is updated), or substantially soften the preservation claim and provide quantitative evidence of the drift.
[Sec. 4.2 and Appendix A.2 (Evaluation Metrics)] The geometry-preservation claim is evaluated only qualitatively. Appendix A.2 explicitly states that "due to the lack of mesh editing ground truth, we only provide qualitative comparisons about geometry manipulation." This is avoidable: since the input mesh is available, the paper could measure preservation by comparing the edited mesh against the input mesh in the unedited region, e.g., Chamfer distance or Hausdorff distance restricted to faces outside the edited area, or changes in vertex/face counts and local surface normals. Without such metrics, the central claim that unedited parts remain unchanged is not quantitatively supported. The CLIP similarity in Table 2 and the user study in Table 5 measure prompt alignment and overall preference, not preservation of unedited geometry.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 2] "exiting MVControlNet based methods" should be "existing MVControlNet based methods."
[Appendix A.2] The text alternates between "Unet" and "UNet"; please use one consistent spelling.
[Table 2] The CLIP similarity scores are reported without error bars or significance tests; given the small evaluation set of 20 models, please report variance or per-case statistics.
[Sec. 4.2] The statement "CMD achieves an 8-times speedup than state-of-the-art mesh editing methods" is not directly supported by Table 1, where the cited baselines range from 4 minutes to 120 minutes; please clarify which baseline the speedup is computed against.
[Sec. 3.3] The six predefined viewpoints {0, 45, 90, 180, 270, 315} are not evenly distributed; please justify this choice, especially since the edited view is always the 0-degree view.
[Appendix A.2] The reference to "OpenArt 2023" in Sec. 3.3 is minimal; please provide a more complete citation or a description of the editing tool used to generate target images.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: CMD's central claims are empirical behaviors of a trained conditional diffusion model, not consequences of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its headline results from fitted constants or from self-referential definitions. CondMV is a learned multiview diffusion model (Sec. 3.1) with a ControlNet-style injection; the property that unedited regions remain unchanged is trained from paired original/modified multiview renderings (Appendix A.1) and is presented as an empirical capability, not as an equation that reduces to its inputs. Incremental reconstruction (Sec. 3.2) optimizes Eq. (1) with the original mesh as initialization; preservation of unedited geometry is therefore a heuristic outcome, and the paper's own limitations (Sec. 5, Fig. 16, Appendix A.4) explicitly concede that topology is not preserved. That is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity. The only self-citation of note is the use of Era3D as the base model, which is legitimate open-source prior work and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for any claim; evaluation is against external baselines with external metrics. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its own input by construction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the evaluation data; the listed hyperparameters are standard inference/training choices. The core method relies on the pretrained Era3D prior and on assumptions about the sufficiency of multiview conditioning and the reliability of incremental reconstruction. The paper acknowledges that the latter assumption is violated, making it the key shared assumption.

free parameters (2)

Classifier-free guidance scale (text and image) = 3.0
Used at inference for CondMV; set empirically per Appendix A.2.
Condition drop rate k = 0.05
Hyperparameter in the mix-dropping strategy for classifier-free guidance training (Appendix A.2).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Era3D/Stable Diffusion pretrained weights provide a strong multi-view prior that remains valid after finetuning.
The whole CondMV builds on Era3D weights (Sec. 3.1, Appendix A.2); if the base model cannot generate consistent multiviews for the target domain, CMD cannot achieve its editing or generation quality.
domain assumption Multiview color and normal maps rendered from the original mesh are a sufficient condition signal for the diffusion model to localize edits and preserve unedited regions.
The method assumes that conditioning on the original multiview renderings plus the edited view is enough for the network to infer what should change and what should not (Sec. 3.1). This is an empirical assumption about the learned representation.
domain assumption Incremental reconstruction initialized with the original mesh converges to the desired edited geometry while keeping unedited parts intact.
Sec. 3.2 states the reconstruction "initializes the optimization with the original mesh" and relies on differentiable rendering to update only the edited regions. The paper itself shows this assumption is not fully met in Fig. 16.
ad hoc to paper SAM + CLIP + KMeans segmentation produces a coherent part decomposition for progressive generation.
Appendix A.1 describes a segmentation workflow specific to this paper; it is a preprocessing choice not grounded in a theoretical guarantee, and the order of generation is "left-to-right and bottom-to-top."

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CMD: Controllable Multiview Diffusion for 3D Editing and Progressive Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGOB7KI6

@misc{pith2026250507003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CMD: Controllable Multiview Diffusion for 3D Editing and Progressive Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGOB7KI6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07003}
}

read the original abstract

Recently, 3D generation methods have shown their powerful ability to automate 3D model creation. However, most 3D generation methods only rely on an input image or a text prompt to generate a 3D model, which lacks the control of each component of the generated 3D model. Any modifications of the input image lead to an entire regeneration of the 3D models. In this paper, we introduce a new method called CMD that generates a 3D model from an input image while enabling flexible local editing of each component of the 3D model. In CMD, we formulate the 3D generation as a conditional multiview diffusion model, which takes the existing or known parts as conditions and generates the edited or added components. This conditional multiview diffusion model not only allows the generation of 3D models part by part but also enables local editing of 3D models according to the local revision of the input image without changing other 3D parts. Extensive experiments are conducted to demonstrate that CMD decomposes a complex 3D generation task into multiple components, improving the generation quality. Meanwhile, CMD enables efficient and flexible local editing of a 3D model by just editing one rendered image.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07003 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** We present a novel conditional multiview diffusion model (CMD) for (Top) easy-to-use local 3D editing of a 3D model by editing a rendered view and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The overview of CMD in local 3D editing. Our method takes a 3D mesh and an edited rendering (target image) of this mesh as input and produces the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Input and output of CondMV. CondMV takes multiview conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Progressive 3D generation pipeline. We decompose the input complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Qualitative comparisons of 3D appearance editing show that our method is capable of performing text- and/or image-based local editing while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Diverse editing results. Our method supports diverse editing with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Sequential editing results. Our method facilitates sequential editing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Qualitative comparisons of single-image 3D generation. Compared to baselines, our progressive generation pipeline demonstrates detailed local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Ablation study of MVControlNet in local 3D editing. In each case, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Ablation study of condition signals in progressive 3D generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Dropping strategy for multiple conditions classifier-free guidance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Training dataset samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Testset samples. For the evaluation of CMD’s capabilities in the 3D generation of complex shapes, we curate a testset of 30 high-quality textured models from the website, which feature intricate multi-component structures that pose significant challenges for existing …

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: One limitation of CMD is that its incremental reconstruction fails [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.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

Hunyuan3D-Buffalo 1.0: A Unified Multimodal Model for Scalable 3D Generation, Understanding, and Editing
cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A unified 3D multimodal model combines understanding, text-to-3D generation, instruction-guided editing, and part generation in one architecture, trained on an 87M-sample corpus, with claimed state-of-the-art results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

7 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[5]

In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 4015–4026. Samuli Laine, Janne Hellsten, Tero Karras, Yeongho Seol, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. 2020. Modular Primitives for High-Performance Differentiable Rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics 39, 6 (2020). Mengfei Li, Xiaoxiao Long, Yixun Liang, Weiyu Li...

arXiv 2020
[6]

Wonder3D: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion. In CVPR. Aryan Mikaeili, Or Perel, Mehdi Safaee, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Ali Mahdavi-Amiri. 2023. SKED: Sketch-guided Text-based 3D Editing. ICCV (2023). Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ra- mamoorthi, and Ren Ng. 2021. NeRF: Representing scenes as neural r...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[7]

High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR. Benet Oriol Sabat, Alessandro Achille, Matthew Trager, and Stefano Soatto. 2024. NeRF-Insert: 3D Local Editing with Multimodal Control Signals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19204 (2024). Ryan Schmidt, Cindy Grimm, and Brian Wyvill. 2006. Interactive decal compositing with discrete exponen...

arXiv 2024
[2012]

Acm Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 1–11

A probabilistic model for component-based shape synthesis. Acm Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 1–11. Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 2023. 3D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering.ACM Transactions on 11 SIGGRAPH Conference Papers ’25, August 10–14, 2025, Vancouver, BC, Canada Li e...

work page 2012
[2022]

In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

NeuMesh: Learning Disentangled Neural Mesh-based Implicit Field for Geom- etry and Texture Editing. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . Amir Barda, Vladimir G. Kim, Noam Aigerman, Amit H. Bermano, and Thibault Groueix

work page
[2023]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11784 (2023)

Progressive3d: Progressively local editing for text-to-3d content creation with complex semantic prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11784 (2023). Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. 2023. Obja- verse: A universe of annotated 3d objects. In...

arXiv 2023
[2024]

SIGGRAPH Asia (Conference track) (2024)

MagicClay: Sculpting Meshes With Generative Neural Fields. SIGGRAPH Asia (Conference track) (2024). Edwin Catmull and James Clark. 1998. Recursively generated B-spline surfaces on arbitrary topological meshes. In Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field. 183–188. Hansheng Chen, Ruoxi Shi, Yulin Liu, Bokui Shen, Jiayuan Gu, Gordon Wetzste...

arXiv 2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Segment anything. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 4015–4026. Samuli Laine, Janne Hellsten, Tero Karras, Yeongho Seol, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. 2020. Modular Primitives for High-Performance Differentiable Rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics 39, 6 (2020). Mengfei Li, Xiaoxiao Long, Yixun Liang, Weiyu Li...

arXiv 2020

[2] [6]

Wonder3D: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion. In CVPR. Aryan Mikaeili, Or Perel, Mehdi Safaee, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Ali Mahdavi-Amiri. 2023. SKED: Sketch-guided Text-based 3D Editing. ICCV (2023). Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ra- mamoorthi, and Ren Ng. 2021. NeRF: Representing scenes as neural r...

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[3] [7]

High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR. Benet Oriol Sabat, Alessandro Achille, Matthew Trager, and Stefano Soatto. 2024. NeRF-Insert: 3D Local Editing with Multimodal Control Signals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19204 (2024). Ryan Schmidt, Cindy Grimm, and Brian Wyvill. 2006. Interactive decal compositing with discrete exponen...

arXiv 2024

[4] [2012]

Acm Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 1–11

A probabilistic model for component-based shape synthesis. Acm Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 31, 4 (2012), 1–11. Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 2023. 3D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering.ACM Transactions on 11 SIGGRAPH Conference Papers ’25, August 10–14, 2025, Vancouver, BC, Canada Li e...

work page 2012

[5] [2022]

In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

NeuMesh: Learning Disentangled Neural Mesh-based Implicit Field for Geom- etry and Texture Editing. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . Amir Barda, Vladimir G. Kim, Noam Aigerman, Amit H. Bermano, and Thibault Groueix

work page

[6] [2023]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11784 (2023)

Progressive3d: Progressively local editing for text-to-3d content creation with complex semantic prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11784 (2023). Matt Deitke, Dustin Schwenk, Jordi Salvador, Luca Weihs, Oscar Michel, Eli VanderBilt, Ludwig Schmidt, Kiana Ehsani, Aniruddha Kembhavi, and Ali Farhadi. 2023. Obja- verse: A universe of annotated 3d objects. In...

arXiv 2023

[7] [2024]

SIGGRAPH Asia (Conference track) (2024)

MagicClay: Sculpting Meshes With Generative Neural Fields. SIGGRAPH Asia (Conference track) (2024). Edwin Catmull and James Clark. 1998. Recursively generated B-spline surfaces on arbitrary topological meshes. In Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field. 183–188. Hansheng Chen, Ruoxi Shi, Yulin Liu, Bokui Shen, Jiayuan Gu, Gordon Wetzste...

arXiv 2024