A Review of the State of the Art 3D Generative Models and Their Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since 2022, there has been a large number of 3D generative models that have been devised and published, such as AvatarGen, CityDreamer, and HOLOFUSION. Generally speaking, these models can perform tasks such as generating a 3D human model, creating an unbounded city scene, and constructing a 3D object. And it is not a surprise that 3D generative models are very popular these years because there has been a witness of huge need for 3D models in the global market and the models themselves also serve as both convenient and productive tools for the relevant industries. For instance, 3D generative models can utilize a combination of Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) and Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) or Neural Radiance Field (NeRF) or Diffusion Model to produce 3D human model; Autoregressive Model or Feature Extraction + Volume Rendering to generate 3D scenes; Diffusion Model or GAN + MLP to produce 3D objects. This paper tries to present a taxonomy of the main 3D generative models from the angle of the kinds of outputs and strategies employed by different models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it