MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110460650 · doi:10.1145/3757377.3763877

ART-DECO: Arbitrary Text Guidance for 3D Detailizer Construction

2025· article· W7110460650 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarGenerative modelQuality (philosophy)Matching (statistics)Texture (cosmology)Control (management)Class (philosophy)Text generation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a 3D detailizer, a neural model which can instantaneously (in <1s) transform a coarse 3D shape proxy into a high-quality asset with detailed geometry and texture as guided by an input text prompt. Our model is trained using the text prompt, which defines the shape class and characterizes the appearance and fine-grained style of the generated details. The coarse 3D proxy, which can be easily varied and adjusted (e.g., via user editing), provides structure control over the final shape. Importantly, our detailizer is not optimized for a single shape; it is the result of distilling a generative model, so that it can be reused, without retraining, to generate any number of shapes, with varied structures, whose local details all share a consistent style and appearance. Our detailizer training utilizes a pretrained multi-view image diffusion model, with text conditioning, to distill the foundational knowledge therein into our detailizer via Score Distillation Sampling (SDS). To improve SDS and enable our detailizer architecture to learn generalizable features over complex structures, we train our model in two training stages to generate shapes with increasing structural complexity. Through extensive experiments, we show that our method generates shapes of superior quality and details compared to existing text-to-3D models under varied structure control. Our detailizer can refine a coarse shape in less than a second, making it possible to interactively author and adjust 3D shapes. Furthermore, the user-imposed structure control can lead to creative, and hence out-of-distribution, 3D asset generations that are beyond the current capabilities of leading text-to-3D generative models. We demonstrate an interactive 3D modeling workflow our method enables, and its strong generalizability over styles, structures, and object categories.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207