Text-to-3D by Stitching a Multi-view Reconstruction Network to a Video Generator
Authors: Hyojun Go
Dominik Narnhofer
Goutam Bhat
Prune Truong
Federico Tombari
Konrad Schindler
Venue: ICLR 2026 Oral (2026)
Keywords: Text-to-3D generation
Video Diffusion Model
3D Gaussian Splatting
Generation
Primary area: generative models
TL;DR: Text-to-3D scene generative modelling by unifying a video generative model with a foundational 3D model via model stitching and alignment.

Abstract: The rapid progress of large, pretrained models for both visual content generation and 3D reconstruction opens up new possibilities for text-to-3D generation. Intuitively, one could obtain a formidable 3D scene generator if one were able to combine the power of a modern latent text-to-video model as "generator" with the geometric abilities of a recent (feedforward) 3D reconstruction system as "decoder". We introduce **VIST3A**, a general framework that does just that, addressing two main challenges. First, the two components must be joined in a way that preserves the rich knowledge encoded in their weights. We revisit *model stitching*, i.e., we identify the layer in the 3D decoder that best matches the latent representation produced by the text-to-video generator and stitch the two parts together. That operation requires only a small dataset and no labels. Second, the text-to-video generator must be aligned with the stitched 3D decoder, to ensure that the generated latents are decodable into consistent, perceptually convincing 3D scene geometry. To that end, we adapt *direct reward finetuning*, a popular technique for human preference alignment. We evaluate the proposed VIST3A approach with different video generators and 3D reconstruction models. All tested pairings markedly improve over prior text-to-3D models that output Gaussian splats. Moreover, by choosing a suitable 3D base model, VIST3A also enables high-quality text-to-pointmap generation.

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
TEXT-TO-3D BY STITCHING A MULTI-VIEW RECON- STRUCTION NETWORK TO A VIDEO GENERATOR
Hyojun Go Dominik Narnhofer'
Goutam Bhat
Prune Truong?
Federico Tombari Konrad Schindler 'ETH Zurich, Google
"A golden retriever with a bbse bowtie"
"A bedroom scone features lorge bed adorned with white linens Tuo lampe in nightstonis..
"A wocdon rocking horse child's playroom"
"An alpinist scating a dramatir, unme-cmered mountte face the climber captured mid omphasizing solinde against the inseuse landscape."
'A of scene surrouneed by many slopes and serene winter atmosphere.
gloaming goldon with intricate engravings stands tall iunde worn bronk leather suitoare...
(a) Text-to-3DGS
(b) Text-to- Pot-to-Poointap
Figure 1: Text-to-3D generation with VIST3A. Video models excel at generating latent visual con- tent from text prompts, whereas 3D foundation models shine when it comes to decoding such a latent representation into consistent scene geometry. By stitching video generator and a 3D recon- struction network together and aligning their latents, we obtain an end-to-end model that produces high-quality Gaussian splats (a) point maps (b) from text prompts.
ABSTRACT
The rapid progress of large, pretrained models for both visual content generation and 3D reconstruction opens up new possibilities for text-to-3D generation. In- tuitively, one could obtain formidable 3D scene generator if one were able combine the power of a modern latent text-to-video model "generator" with the geometric abilities of recent (feedforward) 3D reconstruction system as "de- coder". We introduce VIST3A, general framework that does just that, addressing two main challenges. First, the two components must be joined a way that pre- serves the rich knowledge encoded in their weights. We revisit model stitching, i... we identify the layer in the 3D decoder that best matches the latent represen- tation produced by the text-to-video generator and stitch the two parts together. That operation requires only a small dataset and no labels. Second, the text-to- video generator must be aligned with the stitched 3D) decoder, ensure that the generated latents are decodable into consistent, perceptually convincing 3D scene geometry. To that end, we adapt direct reward finetuning, popular technique for human preference alignment. We evaluate the proposed VIST3A approach with different video generators and 3D reconstruction models. All tested pair- ings markedly improve over prior text-to-3D models that output Gaussian splats. Moreover, by choosing a suitable 3D base model, VIST3A also enables high- quality text-to-pointmap generation.
Project page: https:://ohyoo/ii/ 5. t.ui 10/V1ST3A/

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
INTRODUCTION
With image and video generators now a commodity, text-to-3D models that produce 3D scenes from text prompts have become new research frontier, with applications in AR/VR. gaming, robotics, and simulation. Early methods for 3D generation adopt Score Distillation Sampling (SDS) (Poole et al., 2023; Tang et al., 2024b; Wang et al., 2023b; Chen et al., 2024b) to optimize a 3D representa- tion, e.g. a NeRF (Mildenhall al., 2021; Müller et al., 2022) or 3D Gaussian Splats (3DGS, Kerbl et al., 2023) under pretrained 2D diffusion prior (Rombach et al., 2022). A drawback these methods have in common is the need for slow per-scene optimization. Another line of work uses multi-stage pipelines that first synthesize images and then lift them to 3D with separate model (Tang et al., 2024a; Xu et al., 2024b; Zhang et al., 2024b) or with per-scene optimization (Gao et al., 2024; Wu al., 2024a; Yu et al., 2025b); employ progressive warping and refinement (Shriram et al., 2025; Yu et al,, 2025a; 2024); or sequentially chain multiple generative modules (Yang et al., 2025b; Engstler et al., 2025). The multi-stage design not only increases model complexity and engineering effort, but also makes such models prone to error accumulation (Lin et al., 2025; Meng et al., 2025).
A recent trend is to directly generate the 3D represen- tation with end-to-end latent diffusion models (LDMs, Schwarz et al., 2025: LAN al., 2025; Li al., 2025b;a). A prominent line of work starts from pretrained 2D im- age (Esser et al., 2024; Rombach et al., 2022) or video models (Team, 2024; Yang et al., 2025e) and finetunes them
(a) Previous methods
Genemative Model
3D Decoder
Miet Latent
3D Representation
(b) Ours
to output multi-view 2D latents, reusing the pretrained pri- ors (Szymanowicz et al., 2025; Liang et al., 2025; Schwarz et al., 2025; Lin et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025c; Go et al., 2025a;b). Subsequently, a VtE-style decoder is trained to decode those latents into the desired 3D representation, see Fig. 2. The LDM-like design unifies 2D generation and multi-view reconstruction within the latent space and en- ables efficient 3D scene generation with a compact, well- amortized decoder.
Foodforward 3D Model
Model Stitching
O
Generative Model
Aligned Laseol
3D Represeentiioon
Figure 2: Comparison with existing, LDM-based 3D generators. Instead of training custom decoder from multi-view 2D latents to 3D outputs, we stitch and align an existing, pre- trained 3D reconstruction model.
Still, two key limitations remain. First, we argue that the Achilles heel of existing 2D-to-3D diffusion models is the decoder. By simply repurposing the 2D VAE to produce 3D outputs, the network must learn 3D reconstruction more or less from scratch, which requires extensive training and large datasets that are hard to obtain (Yang et al., 2025c; Szymanowicz et al., 2025; Go et al., 2025b). This practice becomes increasingly problematic as new, better 3D foundation models emerge (Wang et al., 2026; 2025b; 2024; Zhang et al., 2025) and the ad-hoc trained decoders of text-to-3D models fall further behind the state of the art in 3D vision.
Second, the prevalent training scheme tends to suffer from weak alignment between the generative model and the VAE decoder. Typically, the former is finetuned on multi-view datasets with a gener- ative objective like a diffusion loss (Song et al., 2021; Sohl-Dickstein al., 2015; Ho et al., 2020) or flow matching (Liu et al., 2023; Lipman et al., 2023; Albergo & Vanden-Fijnde indirectly promotes 3D-consistent latents. Moreover, the separate training may cause the latents, even if 3D-consistent, to be out of domain from the perspective of the decoder. To mitigate that mis- alignment, it has been proposed to add rendering losses that promote decodable latents (Lin al., 2025). However, the resulting objective is based on single-step sampling and does not sufficiently take into account the denoising trajectory, leading to weak alignment at inference.
2023), which only
We introduce VIST3A: VIdeo VAE STitching and 3D Alignment. The proposed method consists of two complementary components that address the above-mentioned limitations, see Fig. 2. First, we resort to the concept of model stitching (Pan et al., 2023; Lenc & Vedaldi, 2015; Bansal et al., 2021; Csiszárik et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2022) to leverage powerful, pretrained feedforward 3D models for decoding, rather than start from scratch. The idea is to attach the relevant part of a 3D reconstruction network as a "decoder" to the latent space of a video VAE. For this to work, there needs to be one or more layers in the 3D model whose activations are similar (up to linear transformation) to those in the VAE's s latent space, despite their independent pretraining. Perhaps surprisingly. this turns out to be the case. For the 3D model, we identify the layer with the most linear relation to the LDM latents,
2

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
slice the network before that layer, and retain the downstream portion 3D decoder. After fitting a single. linear stitching layer (in closed form), the VAE latent space already matches the expected input of the 3D decoder well, such that subsequent fine-tuning will be minor and not degrade the respective generative and 3D reasoning capabilities of the two base models.
Second, we further improve alignment between the generative model and the stitched decoder through direct reward finetuning (Clark et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2023; Prabhudesai et al., 2024; Wu al., 2024c; Shen et al., 2025). In that technique, commonly used align diffusion models with human preferences, reward signals are defined based on the "goodness" of the VAE output - in our setting, the visual quality and 3D consisteney of the decoded 3D representations. Maximizing these rewards encourages the LDM to produce latents that are cD-consistent and lie within the decoder's input domain, ensuring high-quality outputs. Importantly, our alignment compares video model outputs and images rendered from the generated 31) scenes, hence it does not require labels.
In our experiments, we show that the proposed stitching scheme applicable across a range of video generative models and also across several different feedforward 3D models. VIST3A's direct 3D decoding consistently outperforms prior text-1o-3DGS methods, and additionally offers high-quality pointmap generation from text prompts.
2 RELATED WORKS
3D generation. Recent works have explored various 3D representations for generative modelling, including point clouds (Mo et al., 2023; Nichol et al., 2022; Vahdat et al., 2022). meshes (Xu et al., 2024a), voxel grids (Sanghi et al., 2023), NeRFs (Chen et al., 2023; Müller et al., 2022; Mildenhall et al.. 2021), and 3DGS (Henderson et al., 2024; Zhang et al.. 2024a; Kerbl et al., 2023). Score distillation using 2D diffusion models is consuminn,, mization (Wang et al., 2023a; Shi et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023b), while multi-stage pipelines (Yu al., 2025b; Liu al., 2024; Zheng al., 2025) lack robustness and create significant engineering overhead. For further details on multi-stage pipelines, please refer to Appendix A.
it requires per-scene test time opti-
More recently, the field has shifted towards end-to-end latent diffusion models, where the generator operates in the latent space of a VAE, and the latter directly decodes the resulting latents to 3D outputs. Many of these works focus on object-centric asset generation (Wu et al., 2024b; Zhao al., 2023; Lin et al., 2025) and train the LDM on curated datasets such as Objaverse (Deitke et al., 2023), with single objects or bounded scenes, and controlled camera paths. Consequently, they are unable to handle wollw challenges like strongly varying scene scale, variable lighting, etc.
To tackle such situations, recent methods (Szymanowicz et al., 2025; Liang et al., 2025; Schwarz et al., 2025; Lin et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025c; Go et al., 2025a;b) repurpose the comprehensive knowledge of the visual world that implicit in 2D image generators. The general strategy is to finetune a pretrained 2D model on multi-view data, by using generative losses to enforce cross- view consistency.
many cases training is further supported by additional 3D cues like camera poses (Li et al., 2024b; Go et al., 2025b), depthmaps (Go et al., 2025a; Yang et al., 2025c), or pointmaps (Szymanowicz et al., 2025). The resulting multi-view latents are decoded to 3D scenes with a dedicated VAE-style decoder, meaning that 3D reasoning capabilities must be rebuilt from scratch, and that they are only weakly aligned with the generator output- limitations which we address with VIST3A.
Learned 3D reconstruction. A notable trend in 3D computer vision is the trend to move away from multi-stage pipelines and iterative optimization towards end-to-end, feedforward 3D mod- elling. Classical reconstruction pipelines based on SfM (Hartley & Zisserman, 2003; Schönberger & Frahm, 2016) and MVS (Furukawa et al., 2015; Schönberger et al.. 2016) require incremental, it- crative optimization, whereas recent advances like DUSt3 (Wang et al., 2024) and MASt3R (Leroy et al., 2024) directly predict 3D point maps in one forward pass. Several follow-up works have fur- ther reduced test-time optimization (Tang et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2025c; Yang et al., 2025a). Likewise, 3D Gaussian splatting has evolved from per-scene optimization to feedforward predic- tion (Charatan et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024a; Ye et al., 2025). Once more, data scaling has been a critical factor (Wang et al., 2025b; 2026). Consequently, replicating the 3D capabilities of recent feedforward models part of VAE training would be difficult and costly. VIST3A offers solution by reusing, rather than rebuilding, models like AnySplat (Jiang et al., 2025), VGGT (Wang et al., 2025b), MVDUS13R (Tang et al., 2025).
3

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
1) Search for stitching layer
2) Stitch and finctune
Stitched Parts
Feedforrwrdd 3D
Model
F
Ei Hoss
A
Find transferable layor
Feedforwand 3D Model Fig
Unlabeled Video
throught
nrS mii
ISS,
A
Direct reward finetuning for alignment
30 regrosentation
Stitched
Reward
(1) rxproctttte
"Prmppt"
Rendored image
17) candoracy
D
backpropagation
Rackprop
Laten generative model
images
Figure 3: VIST3A constructs a 3D VAE through model stitching (top), then aligns with a gen- erative model via direct reward finetuning (bottom). Stitching repurposes part of pretrained 3D vision model as decoder to obtain 3D VAE. Direct reward finetuning simulates full-trajectory denoising, forcing the generative model produce 3D-consistent, decodable latents.
Model stitching. Recomposing the heads and tails of two different networks was initially studied as a way assess the equivariance of neural representations (Lenc & Vedaldi, 2015), and as an experimental tool to compare two different representations (Csiszárik et al., 2021; Bansal et al., 2021). To ensure invariance against trivial affine transformations, the head some trained network A is normally attached to the tail of another network B via linear, trainable stitching layer. Besides revealing similarities between networks that common metrics like CKA (Kornblith et al., 2019) would miss, was also found that different architectures that were trained on the same data often be stitched into a new, hybrid model with minimal degradation (Bansal et al., 2021). This has opened the door for practical uses of stitching, e.g. DeRy (Yang et al., 2022) for resource- constrained reassembly of pretrained models and SN-Net (Pan et al., 2023) to build networks with varying scales. Going one step further, demonstrate that strong 3D VAEs can be obtained by stitching foundational 3D model to the latent space of a video VAE as its decoder, even if they were trained independently on different data.
3 METHODOLOGG
VIST3A consists two key components, see Fig. 3: (1) model stitching optimally attach (part of) foundational 3D model as the decoder for the latent, and (2) direct reward finetuning to optimize the alignment of the (latent) generative model with that new decoder.
3.1 MODEL STITCHING FOR 3D VAE CONSTRUCTION
Our objective is to build 3D VAE by seamlessly combining the encoder of video LDM and feedforward 3D reconstruction model. Note that, for stitching purposes, one can skip the denoising loop, since feeding images into the encoder already gives clean latents. Let & denote the encoder and D the decoder of the VAE, and let Fia(w) ft ... (z) that maps
be the feedforward 3D network of views æ 3D output y. with / the total number of layers in that feedforward model. As shown in Fig. 3, we cut the feedforward model at layer k* and stitch the downstream part F fi
fk+ to the output layer of the encoder with the help linear stitching layer S. In doing so, we obtain new 3D VAE Mstiched that outputs the same representation ÿ as the original 3D model:
Maniched = F S E(x) ÿ. Dsttched = F S
(1)
'To he consistent with existing literature (L.NN al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025c), also use the term "3D VAE", although the mapping from 2D images 3D is, technically, not variational auto-encader.
4

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
The front portion Fisk- of the 3D model is discarded - but if the clean encoder latents, after the affine warping S, are (almost) the same as the activations fk-, then the back portion will still produce the same output, ÿ z y. In other words, the stitched VAE Matiched is an approximation of the original 3D model F. retains much of the ability to map multi-view images to a 3D reconstruction and only requires little fine-tuning restore that ability.
Step 1: Finding the stitching index and initialization. To identify the layer k" in the 3D model whose representation is most compatible with the VAE latent, we first push set of N samples through the encoder & to obtain their latents B E RDN Here, Dg denotes the dimensionality of the encoder latent space. and Dr denotes the dimensionality of the feature (activation) at layer k. Then, we scan over candidate layers k E {l,..., I - 1 of the 3D model and, for each layer in turn, extract the activations A E DR and fit the linear stitching layer S* & E DDxx that best recovers the activations of the 3D model at layer k. by solving a least-squares problem:
S' = arg min [Sa Aul = (B JBB B) 'B'AA A Sx
Finally, select the stitching layer k- that leads to the smallest (mean squared) error, k* arg ming [[SS; - Ax 1p. and assemble the 3D VAE by concatenating E, St. and Fg- Em- pirically, find that many combinations of foundational VAEs and 3D feedforward models can be stitched this manner, with minimal performance loss.
Step 2: Stitched decoder finetuning. To further reduce the remaining discrepancies between the newly assembled 3D VAE and the original 3D model, we finetune S and 41++ to reproduce the predictions of the original 3D model y. using them as pseudo-targets. Practical feedforward models produce multiple outputs (e.g.. point maps, depth, poses), so we optimize a weighted sum of l losses for all of them. Note that the fine-tuning step is sulf--upervised and does not require labels. In our implementation, we restrict the stitching layer to a 3D convolution and employ LoRA (Hu et al., 2022) for updating Fig-1: to prevent large deviations from the pretrained weights. For further details, see Appendix B.
3.2 ALIGNMENT VIA DIRECT REWARD FINETUNING
So far, we have assembled 3D VAE with a strong, pretrained 3D) decoder. However, during text-to- 3D inference, the latents are not obtained from the encoder but generated from noise by the denoising loop conditioned on the text prompt. Therefore, we must also align the generative model itself with the 3D decoder, such that it produces decodable latents.
Previous work finetunes the generative network by minimizing generative losses over some multi- view dataset. Unfortunately, that strategy does not ensure 3D-consistent latents. Even if it did, the finetuning bypasses the decoder, hence there is no guarantee that the generated latents fall within the distribution expected by the 3D VAE and can be decoded to meaningful outputs.
To address the disconnect between the denosing loop and the 3D VAE, we adopt direct reward finetuning to align the two. In other words, we extend conventional, generative multi-view finetuning with reward maximization. The conventional generative loss Lgen uses paired data, i.e., multi-view images and corresponding prompts. In contrast, the proposed reward term r(.,c) relies only on the text prompt and requires ground-truth images. Our total loss is defined as
Tautal
Lagen - r(20(0,, c, c)),
(3)
where 0 are the parameters of the video generative model, e represents the text prompt, zp is the initial noise, and (f, c, 2r) is the final latent produced by the denoising loop.
Reward. The proposed reward function consists of three components that ensure high-quality and 3D-consistent generation. (1) Multi-view Image Quality: As we keep the encoder frozen, the generated latents can be decoded by the original video decoder 'D to obtain multi-view images. We evaluate these images against the input prompt using CLIP-based (Fang et al., 2024) and HPSv2 human preference scores (Wu et al., 2023) to promote prompt adherence and visual quality, similar to DanceGRPO (Xue et al., 2025). (2) 3D Representation Quality: To encourage high-quality 3D outputs after decoding with Danchedd we render the generated 3D scenes (pointmaps and/or 3DGS) back into 2D views and apply the same (CLIP + HPSv2) metrics them as above. (3) 3D Consis- tency: To enforce 3D consistency, we render the 3D representation from the same viewpoints as the multi-view images reconstructed by the video decoder D, using the camera poses predicted by the
5

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
feedforward 3D model. We then compute a combination of f1 fl-loss and LPIPS (Zhang et al., 2018) for each pair of decoded and rendered images belonging to the same viewpoint. The final (negative) reward is weighted sum of these three losses. For further details, Appendix B.2.
Alignment algorithm. To optimize the generative model according to the reward function above, employ direct reward finetuning (Clark et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2023; Prabhudesai et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2024c; Shen et al., 2025). Le.. the model generates samples by unfolding the full denoising path, and the rewards computed from these samples are then backpropagated through the denoising chain. While the algorithm benefits from gradient-based feedback, it can also suffer from exploding gradient norms. To stabilize the optimization, we generalize the idea of DRTune (Wu et al., 2024c): gradients are detached from the inputs to the generative model, but retained during the update step to the next denoising state. In this way, reward propagation remains stable even at early denoising steps. Furthermore, we modify the optimizer for better computational efficiency by (i) randomized sampling, using fewer timesteps than during inference, and (ii) randomizing the subset of denois- ing steps where gradients are backpropagated, such that the model learns from diverse denoising trajectories. For further details, see Appendix B.2.
In summary, perform joint, end-to-end alignment of the VAE and the generative model, unlike conventional multi-view fine-tuning that keeps them separate. Reward tuning ensures that, through- out the iterative denoising process, the generative model remains aligned with our 3D VAE and generates latents that suit the stitched decoder.
4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In what follows, we demonstrate VIST3A's 's text-to-3D generation performance. The main findings are that VIST3A clearly outperforms existing feedforward text-to-3DGS approaches and also of- fers high-quality text-to-pointmap generation. Moreover, we experimentally analyze our two core components, sulf-supervised model stitching and aligument finetuning..
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUPS
We provide a high-level overview of the experimental setup. A complete description of evaluation protocols and training details can be found in Appendix C.
Target 3D models. We target last-generation foundational 3D vision models that have been trained on large-scale datasets, have demonstrated generality and reliable performance across di- verse domains, and require only images input. For our experiments, we select three represen- tative state-of-the-art models: (1) MVDUS13R (Tang et al., 2025) predicts pointmaps and Gaussian splats, (2) VGGT (Wang al., 2025b) predicts pointmaps, depth maps and camera poses, and (3) AnySplat (Jiang et al., 2025) predicts Gaussian splats and camera poses.
Target video generators. Our primary video model is Wan 2.1 T2V large (Wan al., 2025), of text-to-video generator. To demonstrate the generality of VIST3A across different architectures, we additionally use several other latent video models, including Cog VideoX (Yang et al., 2025e), SVD (Blattmann et al., 2023), and Hunyuan Video (Kong et al., 2024).
Training data. We finetune stitched VABs on DL33V-10K (Ling et al., 2024) and ScanNet (Dai et al., 2017), without 3D labels. To align the video generator in latent space, we utilize DL33V-10K to compute the generative loss, with prompts from the HPSv2 training set (Wu al., 2023).
4.2 MAIN RESULTS: 3D GENERATION
Stitching Wan to the 3D models listed in Section 4.1 yiclds two types of generative models: (i) Text- to-3DGS when using ApySp or MVDUS(3R as decoder; and (ii) Text-to-Pointmap when using VGGT MVDUS13R. Both variants evaluated in the following.
Baselines. Important baselines for text-to- 3DGS are SplatFlow (Go et al., 2025a), Director3D (Li et al., 2024b), Prometheus3D (Yang et al., 2025c), and VideoRFSplat (Go et al., 2025b). Addition- ally, we include Matrix3D-ome (Yang et al., 2025d), to our knowledge, the only other model that unifies generation and reconstruction in latent space.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Table 1: Quantitative results on T3Bench and SceneBench.
T3Bench (Ofject-eentric)
SerneBench (Some-level)
Method
Imaging1
Aesthetic?
CLIP1
Unitted Reward
Imagingt
Arsthetic!
CLIP
Unitted Reward
Align.
Cohen:
Style
Align.1
Coher:
Style?
Matric3D-ommi
43.05
37.66
25.05
46.65
37.62
24.04
Disector31)
54.32
53.33
30.94
3.43
47:79
52.81
29.31
3.20
Promecheuss3
47.45
44.32
29.15
2,84
3.12
2.66
44.73
45.85
28.57
3.20
3.35
2.98
SpladFlow
46.09
53.24
29.48
3.29
3.25
1.93
48.85
53.71
29:43
3.47
3.65
3.26
VideoRFSplal
46.52
39.50
30.13
3.12
3.24
3.09
58.19
51.71
29.76
3.58
3,63
3.30
VISTBA: Wan MVDUSEI
58.83
56.55
32.75
3,89
62.08
30.26
VISTA::
AnySplax
22.03
54.11
31.38
3.30
3.08
2.17
64.87
$6.96
30.18
3.67
3.80
3.40
Table 2: Quantitative results on DPG-Bench.
Table 3: Stitching enhances NVS.
DPG-Beach
Method
PSNRT
SSIM
LPIPS,
Method
Globalt
Entityt
Atribuute
Relationt
Other?
SplatHoow
19.10
0.671
0.278
VidcoRFSplat
19.05
0.674
0.281
Matrix3D-ommi
53.32
42.44
56.23
37.12
10.32
PrometheusAD
19.56
0.683
0.277
Director3D
66.67
64.96
60.85
45.15
22.73
Prometheus3D
45,45
48.35
55.03
33.50
9.10
SplSp
20.85
0.695
0.238
SplatFlow
69.70
68.43
65,55
50.49
40.91
Hunyuan + AnySplat
21.17
0.710
0.242
RideoRFSplat
36,36
56.93
66.89
48.53
31.82
SVD + AnySpl
21.48
0.720
0.218
VIST3A: Wan + MVDUSER
81.82
84.31
86.13
68.93
54.55
Cug Vid AnySplat
21.32
0.716
0,222
VIST3A:
Wan AnySplat
85.58
84.12
76.70
Wan AnySplat
21.29
0.718
0.232
T3bench (He et al., 2023) for object-centric generation, SceneBench (Yang et al., 2025c) for scene-level synthe- sis, and DPG-bench (Hu et al., 2024) to assess adherence to long, detailed prompts. On T3bench and SceneBench, we render images and compute Imaging Quality and Aesthetic Quality scores as defined by VBench (Huang et al., 2024) to assess visual fidelity, CLIP score (Hessel et al., 2021) for text-prompt alignment, and Alignment, Coherence, and Style scores according to Wang et al. (2025d) as comprehensive quality metrics. We prefer to avoid traditional no-reference metrics like NIQE (Mittal et al., 2012b) and BRISQUE (Mittal et al., 2012a) that have sometimes been used in the context of 3D generation, but lack a meaningful connection to the conditional generation task (e.g.. they can be gambled by always returning the same sharp and colorful, high-scoring image, independent of the prompt). For DPG-bench, we follow the suggested protocol (Hu et al., 2024), but upgrade from the originally proposed language models to the more capable, UniriedReward LLM (based on Qwen 7B). fext-to-pointmen models are evaluated qualitatively, as no established benchmarks or baselines exist.
Evaluation protocol. We evaluate text-to-3DGS models on three benchmarks:
Quantitative Results. Tables and 2 show the results for the three text-to-3DGS benchmarks. Notably, both tested VIST3A variants exhibit superior performance across all datasets and evalua- tion metrics. On T3bench, both Wan+-nySSlat and Wan+M baselines, with particularly large margins in Imaging Quality and Coherence score. For the more complex scene-level synthesis of SceneBench, our models reach Imaging Quality scores >60 and Coherence scores >3.8, again a marked improvement over prior art. On DPG-bench, our mod- els greatly outperform the baselines, mostly scoring >75 (often even R=85), values that previously seemed out of reach. The consistent gains on T3bench, SceneBench,, and DPG-bench demonstrate the effectiveness and versatility of our stitching approach for text-based 3D scene generation. We attribute these results to the power of foundational contemporary video and 3D models, which our stitching and fine-tuning scheme unlocks for the purpose of 3D generative modeling.
consistently outperform all
Human evaluation. To further validate the effectiveness of VIST3A, we conduct a user study where we compare against four other methods: Director3D, SplatFlow, Prometheus3D, and Vide- oRFSplat. A total of 28 participants evaluated 14 randomly selected samples drawn from T3Bench, SceneBench, and DPG-Bench, ranking each method according to two criteria: (1) Text Aligmment and (2) Visual Quality of videos rendered from the generated 3DGS. As shown in Table 4, VIST3A achieves the best performance (lowest average rank) on both criteria. Notably, participants rank VIST3A as the top method in >68% of cases for text alignment and >87% for visual quality, un- derscoring its superiority in generating high-fidelity, semantically consistent 3D scenes.
Qualitative Results Figure 4 qualitatively compares VIST3A AWan+AnySplat) to several base- lines. In line with the quantitative results, VIST3A produces superior, visually compelling, and geometrically coherent renderings that closely follow the input prompts; whereas previous methods tend to exhibit artifacts, structural distortions, and poor text alignment. Further qualitative results, including Wan+MVDUst3R and Any+lny variants of VIST3A, as well text-to-pointmap
7

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Table 4: User study results. Participants rank five methods in terms of text alignment and visual quality of rendered videos from generated 3DGS (lower average rank is better).
Method
Text Alignment (Avg. Rank 4)
Visual Quality (Avg. Rank 4)
Director3D
3.03
2.99
SplatFlow
3.38
3.88
P
3.25
3.71
VideoRFSplat
2.74
2.92
VIST3A (Wan+ AnySplat)
1.54
1.45
Director3D
Prometheus3D
Splat|low
VideoRIPSplat
VIST3A: AnySplat
"A green turtle suimming clear pond"
RECE
"An Arian restaurant, possibly Chinese, depicted street view The entrance the restaurant is marked large blue sign with Chinese characters, In front of the restaurant, there's prominent gray swming, Trees and bushes adi greenery to the urban setting.
"A small, round glass flask sits filled with brightly colored, huminous the masaive stainless steel rice cooker positioned in the corner of the room, Its steam vent puffing gently as it diligently pr prepares sizeable meal feast. tabletop's is surface scattered the contrast between the delicate glastware and the robust kitchen applance..
aged wonden tabietap.
clear and sharp.
few pieces of parchment
adds dried
Figure 4: Qualitative results for 3DGS generation. We show samples from T3Bench (top), SceneBench (middle), and DPG-hench (bottom). VIST3A generates realistic and crisp 3D scenes and adheres intricate details in the prompt.
examples, can be found in Appendix E. Interestingly, we find that, even without specific training on very long image sequences, VIST3A generate coherent large-scale scenes by extending the number of frames generated by the LDM. This demonstrates that our framework preserves the ability of video generator and the 3D decoder to handle long sequences. Examples depicted in Fig. 16.
8

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Table Results of point map reconstruction with stitched models.
Posntnaa Eltersii
Canera Pioc Entrataisss
Menied
Rraliases
ScarNNer
RHAMSS
[43A015)
AUC
ATTi)
SUTT--AL
Sizn
Med
Meae
Mol
Meas
Med
Minn
Sted
Mian
Mid.
Siaon
Mes.
0.07
0.13
0.33
0.11
0,09
0.599
0.405
0.358
D.399
0.166
0.800
0.857
86.36
12.40
41.57
D/16
0.19
DW6S
0926
0.81
0833
0.13
0.77
0.33
0.410
0.310
0.37
0.168
0.804
0.899
12.67
41.09
0616
0.00
0.90
6028
0403
0.09
0.412
0.387
0.81
09.29
41.95
0016
0.019
MVDUS938
0027
0/02
00712
0.401
0.757
0006
Way VVGT
6008
0.008
0.32
0.015
0.03
0.790
0.315
0.166
0,88
0.221
0.837
0.960
18.98
50.86
0614
0.015
0,330
0.05
0.08
0.78
NC Meon
0.07
NC Med
1.07
0.94
0.74
0.05
0.72
10:1
0.04
Comp
0.70
ACC Mean
0.68
10mh
ACC Med
0.02
0.54
15 Layer Index
20
10
15 Layer Index
Layer Index
Layer Index
(a) log-MSE value in Eq. 2
(b) Acc.
(c) Comp
(d) NC.1
Figure 5: MSE and pointmap quality on 7-Scenes vs. to stitching layer. Lower MSE in the stitching layer correlates with better 3D reconstruction.
4.3 MAIN RESULTS: MODEL STITCHING
Stitching the 3D foundation models from Section 4.1 with video VAE yields variants: VAE for Gaussian splats (AnySplat + video VAE) or a VAE capable of reconstructing pointmaps and camera poses (MVDust3R or VGGT video VAE). In the following, evaluate both variants.
Evaluation protocol. For 3DGS models, we evaluate novel-view synthesis on RealEstate 10K (Zhou al., 2018), with 8 source and 4 target images. For 3D reconstruction models, we follow Pi3 (Wang et al., 2026) and assess pointmap quality on 7Scenes (Shotton et al., 2013) and ETH3D (Schöps al., 2017), and camera pose estimation on RealEstate 10K and ScanNet (Dai al., 2017). Specifi- cally, Accuracy (Acc.), Completion (Comp.), and Normal Consistency (N.C.) are used for pointmap estimation, while camera pose estimation is evaluated with Relative Rotation Accuracy (RRA) and Relative Translation Accuracy (RTA) at 5 and their AUC up to 30".
Novel view synthesis. Table reports results on RealEstate 10K. Stitching AnySplat onto any video model always improves over using AnySplat alone. We attribute the gains to the richer appear- ance representation of video VAE latents. The experiment consistent with the results of Wonder- land (Liang et al., 2025), where operating in latent space rather than RGB space also benefits 3DGS. Moreover, our stitched VAEs outperform the earlier VAE-based approaches. Remarkably, we sur- pass Prometheus3D and VideoRFSplat despite their use of camera poses and acrge-scale training data, showing that stitching high-performance 3D models is indeed an effective strategy to obtain powerful 3D VAEs.
Pointmap reconstruction results. Table shows that stitching preserves the accuracy and com- pleteness of the original 3D foundation models: both pointmap quality and camera pose accuracy barely change when using video encoder latents as input. The results confirm that stitching achieves its goal, to take advantage of the pretrained models' 3D reconstruction capabilities and repurpose them for generative modeling, without relying on large training datasets or labels.
4.4 ABLATIONS
Effectiveness of MSE for finding stitching layer (See 3.1). We pick the best layer for stitching according to fairly simple criterion, namely the one that best supports linear transfer of the en- coder latents. To analyze the impact of this design, we train stitched decoders for the combination (Wan+VGGi while varying the stitching index. In Fig. 5, we see that layers with lower stitch- ing residual indeed yield better pointmaps, supporting the MSE of the linear stitching layer as our selection criterion.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
This empirical trend is also consistent with existing theory: Theorem 1 in Insulla et al. (2025) shows that the stitching risk of the hybrid network, obtained by connecting the source model's early layers fi with the target model's 's latter layers 92 via linear map S1,2, 2 is upper- spper-bouneed by the MSE the stitching layer,
E - (2)(2) & n
(x))
(4)
where K2 is the Lipschitz constant of 92. Thus, an MSE is related to the upper bound on the stitching error, supporting our use of MSE.
Furthermore, motivated by the observation of Insulla et al. (2025)
0.7
that the right-hand side of Eq. 4 takes a similar form of kernel align-
ment, investigate whether CKA (Kornblith et al., 2019) the trend of final performance. Figure 6 reports the CKA between the latent representation of the Wan VAE and the representations at different layer indices of VGGT (larger values indicate greater similarity). As shown, CKA captures the overall degradation performance as the layer index increases; however, it is less precise than MSE in identifying the best layer, failing to capture that the best performance is achieved at layer 2. These results suggest that, in our setting, MSE is a more reliable indicator of transferability than CKA.
track
0.5
D.3
10
15
20
Layer Index
Figure 6: CKA visualization.
Impact of direct reward finetuning (Sec 3.2). As shown in Appendix D. direct reward finetuning more effective than a pretrained video model on its own, as well as that same model finetuned on multi-view data, with each reward component contributing to the overall performance.
Benefits of integrated vs. sequential 3D generation. Appendix D.2, we observe that an in- tegrated approach is more robust to noise in the latent space, which suggests it may lead to more consistent 3D reconstruction from noise in the generation process.
Additional results in Appendix E demonstrate that VIST3A inherits prompt-based camera control from the video backbone (e.g., responding to instructions like "aerial droneshot"). that the stitching analysis generalizes across multiple VAE architectures, and that finetuning does not degrade and even slightly improves - video generation quality as measured by VBench.
Additional results. In Appendix E, we further show that VIST3A inherits prompt-based camera control from the video backbone, and the stitching layer analysis generalizes across multiple VAE architectures, and our finetuning does not degrade video generation quality on VBench.
5 CONCLUSION
We have presented VIST3A, framework for training latent diffusion models that generate 3D content from text prompts. Our key idea to employ model stitching as a way to integrate the generative abilities of modern video models with the 3D understanding of recent feedforward 3D models. We found that this strategy indeed leads to high-quality 3D VAEs, while not requiring la- beled data or massive training runs. To then align latent-space video generator with the stitched 3D decoder feeds into, we design a reward- based finetuning strategy. Together, these two mea- sures yield family of text-to-3D models with high-quality, geometrically consistent 3D outputs. In passing, they extend 3D generation to other outputs of foundational 3D models, such as pointmaps and depthmaps. More broadly, we see great potential for model stitching general tool com- bine two or more foundational neural networks, including latent generative models. into powerful end-to-end solutions.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by an unrestricted gift from Google, and by grant from the Swiss Na- tional Supercomputing Centre within the Swiss AI Initiative (project a144). We thank Shengyu Huang for insightful discussions and feedback on the paper, particularly regarding the relationship to Representation Autoencoders. We are also grateful to Yongwei Chen for help with reviewing, validating, and cleaning the code.
10

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
REFERENCES
Michael Samuel Albergo and Eric Vanden-Fijnden. Building normalizing flows with stochastic interpolants. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
Yamini Bansal, Preetum Nakkiran, and Boaz Barak. Revisiting model stitching to compare neural representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:225-236, 2021.
Kevin Black, Michael Janner, Yilun Du, Ilya Kostrikov, and Sergey Levine. Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Sumith Kulal, Daniel Mendelevitch, Maciej Kilian, Dominik Lorenz, Yam Levi, Zion English, Vikram Voleti, Adam Letts, et al. Stable video diffusion: Scaling latent video diffusion models to large datasets. preprint arXiv:2311.1512., 2023.
David Charatan, Sizhe Lester Li, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Vincent Sitzmann. pixelSplat: 3d gaus- sian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction. In IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 19457-19467, 2024.
Bowei Chen, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, He Zhang. Tianyuan Zhang, Zhengqi Li, Yuanjun Xiong, Jianming Zhang, and Kai Zhang. Aligning visual foundation encoders to tokenizers for diffusion models. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. URL https: / //tpopoee//e openzeview...o net. Forum? d=a jnBa jnBafpqmE.
Hansheng Chen, Jiatao Gu, Anpei Chen, Wei Tian, Zhuowen Tu, Lingjie Liu, and Hao Su. Single- stage diffusion NeRF: A unified approach to 3d generation and reconstruction. In IEEE/CVF International Conference Computer Vision, pp. 2416-2425,
Luxi Chen, Zihan Zhou, Min Zhao, Yikai Wang, Ge Zhang, Wenhao Huang, Hao Sun, Ji- Ji-Rong Wen, and Chongxuan Li. FlexWorkd Progressively expanding 3d scenes for flexible-view synthesis. preprint arXiv:2503. 13265, 2025.
Yuedong Chen, Haofei Xu, Chuanxia Zheng, Bohan Zhuang, Mare Pollefeys, Andreas Geiger, Tat- Jen Cham, and Jianfei Cai. MVSplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 370-386. 2024a.
Zilong Chen, Feng Wang, Yikai Wang, and Huaping Liu. Text-to- 3d using gaussian splatting. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 21401-21412, 2024b.
Kevin Clark, Paul Vicol, Kevin Swersky, and David J. Fleet. Directly fine-tuning diffusion models on differentiable rewards. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https: opw.reviewe.eeeee//eeee.e....wwe net/ / forum? 11m11m1vv111v1111mmmmmmm 9f.
Adrián Csiszárik, Péter Kórösi-Szabó, Akos Matszangosz, Gergely Papp, and Dániel Varga. Similar- ity and matching of neural network representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:5656-566 -668, 2021.
Angela Dai, Angel X Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Halber, Thomas Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner. ScanNet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes. In IEFF/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5828-5839, 2017.
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 an- notated 3d objects. In /EEE/VV Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp- 13142-13153, 2023.
Paul Engstler, Aleksandar Shtedritski, Iro Laina, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Syncity: Training-free free generation of 3d worlds. In Proceedings the on Computer Vision, pp. 37585-27595 2025.
the IEEE/CVF International Conference
Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas Müller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Ying Fan, Olivia Watkins, Yuqing Du, Hao Liu, Moonkyung Ryu, Craig Boutilier, Pieter Abbeel, Mohammad Ghavamzadch, Kangwook Lee, and Kimin Lee. Reinforcement learning for fine- tuning text-to-image diffusion models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023.
Alex Fang, Albin Madappally Jose, Amit Jain, Ludwig Schmidt, Alexander T Toshev, and Vaishaal Shankar. Data filtering networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
Hao Feng, Zhi Zuo, Jia-hui Pan, Ka-hei Hui, Yihua Shao, Qi Dou, Wei Xie, and Zhengzhe Liu. WonderVerse Extendable 3d scene generation with video generative models. preprint arXiv:2503.099 16100 2025.
Rafail Fridman, Amit Abecasis, Yoni Kasten, and Tali Dekel. SceneScape:
Text-driven consistent scene generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:39897-39914, 2023.
Yasutaka Furukawa, Carlos Hernández, et al. Multi-view stereo: A tutorial. Foundations and frends@ in Computer Graphics and Vision, 9(1-2)11-14, 2015.
Ruiqi Gao, Aleksander Holynski, Philipp Henzler, Arthur Brussee, Ricardo Martin Brualla, Pratul Srinivasan, Jonathan Barron, and Ben Poole. CAT3D: Create anything in 3d with multi-view diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:75468-75494, 2024.
Hyojun Go, Byeongjun Park, Jiho Jang, Jin- Young Kim, Soonwoo Kwon, and Changick Kim. Splat- Flow: Multi-view rectified flow model for 3d gaussian splatting synthesis. In /EEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 21524-21536, 2025a.
Hyojun Go, Byeongjun Park, Hyelin Nam, Byung- Hoon Kim. Hyungjin Chung, and Changick Kim. Videorfsplat: Direct scene-level text-to-3d gaussian splatting generation with flexible pose and multi-view joint modeling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pp. 26706 16706-26717, 2025b.
Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. Multiple view geometry in computer vision. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Yuze He, Yushi Bai, Matthieu Lin, Wang Zhao, Yubin Hu, Jenny Sheng, Ran Yi, Juanzi Li, and Yong-Jin Liu. 13Bench: Benchmarking current progress in text-to-3d generation. preprint arXiv:2310.02977 2023.
Paul Henderson, Melonie de Almeida, Daniela Ivanova, and Titas Anciukevičius. Sampling 3d gaussian scenes in seconds with latent diffusion models. preprint arXiv:2406.1309) 2024.
Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. CLIPScore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning, preprint arXiv:2104.08718, 2021.
Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. In NewrIPS 2021 Workshop on Deep Generative Models and Downstreum Application, 2021. htts:: openreview. n forum? (ww.d:=wwwKKxxcc EYbI.
Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in Neurul Information Processing Systems, 33:6840-6851, 2020.
Yicong Hong, Kai Zhang, Jiuxiang Gu, Sai Bi, Yang Zhou, Difan Liu, Feng Liu, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Trung Bui, and Hao Tan. LRM: Large reconstruction model for single image to 3d. The Twelfth International Conference Learning Representations, 2024. URL https: /ppprevvie...e.. net/ wttr//orummmmmmmm wiw.mmiddsssssssssseem
Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li. Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation large language models. In International Con- ference Learning Representations, 2022.
Xiwei Hu, Rui Wang, Yixiao Fang, Bin Fu, Pei Cheng, and Gang Yu. ELLA: Equip diffusion models with LLM for enhanced semantic alignment. preprint a3Xiv:2403.05135, 2024.
12

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Ziqi Huang, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Fan Zhang, Chenyang Si. Yuming Jiang, Yuanhan Zhang, Tianx- ing Wu, Qingyang Jin, Nattapol Chanpaisit, et al. VBench: Comprehensive benchmark suite for video generative models. In JEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 21 21807-21818, 2024.
Francesco Insulla, Shuo Huang, and Lorenzo Rosasco. Towards learning theory of representation alignment. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https: /tppss//epeereveee iereeviie iew. net/ forrmmoommm d=DShqJA17664
Lihan Jiang, Yucheng Mao, Linning Xu, Tao Lu, Kerui Ren, Yichen Jin, Xudong Xu, Mulin Yu, Jiangmiao Pang, Feng Zhao, al. Anysplat: Feed-forward 3d gaussian splatting from uncon- strained views. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 4466):1-16, 2025.
Junjie Ke, Qifei Wang, Yilin Wang, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. Musiq: Multi-scale im- age quality transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 5148- 2021.
Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3d Gaussian splat- ting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions Graphics, 42(4):139-1, 2023.
Weijie Kong, Qi Tian, Zijian Zhang, Rox Min, Zuozhuo Dai, Jin Zhou, Jiangfeng Xiong. Xin Li, Bo Wu, Jianwei Zhang, et al. Hunyuan Video: A systematic framework for large video generative models. preprint wxXiv:2412.0360) 2024.
Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi. Honglak Lee. and Geoffrey Hinton. Similarity of neural network representations revisited. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 3519- 3529, 2019.
Yushi LAN. Shangchen Zhou, Zhaoyang Lyu, Fangzhou Hong, Shuai Yang, Bo Dai, Xingang Pan, and Chen Change Loy. Gaussianany thing: Interactive point cloud flow matching for 3d gen- eration. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https:/ /ppenevvewww net/ Cent//oorumg forum? 1
Kimin Lee, Hao Liu, Moonkyung Ryu, Olivia Watkins, Yuqing Du, Craig Boutilier, Pieter Abbeel, Mohammad Ghavamzadeh, and Shixiang Shane Gu. Aligning text-to-image models using human feedback. preprint arXiv:2302. 12192, 2023.
Karel Lenc and Andrea Vedaldi. Understanding image representations by measuring their equiv- ariance and equivalence. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 991-999, 2015.
Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and Jérôme Revaud. Grounding image matching in 3d with MAS13R. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 71-91, 2024.
Jiahao Li, Hao Tan, Kai Zhang, Zexiang Xu, Fujun Luan, Yinghao Xu, Yicong Hong, Kalyan Sunkavalli, Greg Shakhnarovich, and Sai Bi. Instant3d: Fast text-to-3d with sparse-view gen- eration and large reconstruction model. In The Twelfth International Conference Learning Representations, 2024a. URL /ttp:::///ppeeeieeer/ www.wwwwwwweeeeeeee.e.e...e..eee 1ttprrrrreeeeeeeeooooeee------- wwt.iiiiiiiIIIIH......
Weiyu Li, Jiarui Liu, Hongyu Yan, Rui Chen, Yixun Liang, Xuelin Chen, Ping Tan, and Xiaox- iao Long. CraftsMan3D: High-fidelity mesh generation with 3d native diffusion and interactive geometry refiner. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.
$307-5317,202..
Xinyang Li, Zhangyu Lai, Linning Xu, Yansong Qu, Liujuan Cao, Shengehuan Zhang, Bo Dai, and Rongrong Ji. Director3D: Real-wort world camera trajectory and 3d scene generation from text. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 75125-75151, 2024b.
Yangguang Li, Zi-Xin Zou, Zexiang Liu, Dehu Wang, Yuan Liang, Zhipeng Yu, Xingchao Liu, Kuan-Chen Guo, Ding Liang, Wanli Ouyang, et al. Triposg: High-fidelit 3d shape synthesis using large-scale rectified flow models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2025b.
13

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Hanwen Liang, Junli Cao, Vidit Goel, Guocheng Qian, Sergei Korolev, Demetri Terzopoulos, Kon- stantinos N Plataniotis, Sergey Tulyakov, and Jian Ren. Wonderland: Navigating 3d scenes from single image. In IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 798- 810, 2025.
Chenguo Lin, Panwang Pan, Bangbang Yang, Zeming Li, and Yadong MU. DiffSplat: Repurposing image diffusion models for scalable gaussian splat generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025.
Lu Ling, Yichen Sheng, Zhi Tu, Wentian Zhao, Cheng Xin, Kun Wan, Lantao Yu, Qianyu Guo, Zixun Yu, Yawen Lu, et al. DL3DV-10K: A large-scale scene dataset for deep learning- 3d vision. In IEEF/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Paltern Recognition, pp. 22 22160-22160 22169, 2024.
Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matthew Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
Fangfu Liu, Wenqiang Sun, Hanyang Wang, Yikai Wang, Haowen Sun, Junliang Ye, Jun Zhang, and Yueqi Duan. ReconX: Reconstruct any scene from sparse views with video diffusion model. preprint arXiv:2408. 16767, 2024.
Jie Liu, Gongye Liu, Jiajun Liang, Yangguang Li, Jiaheng Liu, Xintao Wang, Pengfei Wan, Di ZHANG, and Wanli Ouyang. Flow-GRPO: Training flow matching models via online RL. In The Thirty-ninte Anmual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025. URL https: / openreview net forum? oid--ridGsoooNNN.
Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and qiang liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning generate and transfer data with rectified flow. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
lyya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization, In International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https:: //tp::/s////peeeieewww net/ forum? id= Bkg6RicqY7.
Xuyi Meng, Chen Wang, Jiahui Lei, Kostas Daniilidis, Jiatao Gu, and Lingjie Liu. Zero- 1-to- g: Taming pretrained 2d diffusion model for direct 3d generation. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https: http///pppwwee/ee/e/pe/eeeeeeeep net/ forum?
zav92f8..
Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99-106, 2021.
Anish Mittal, Anush Krishna Moorthy, and Alan Conrad Bovik. No-reference image quality assess- ment in the spatial domain. IEEE Transactions Image Processing, 21(12):4695 47008, 2012a.
Anish Mittal, Rajiv Soundararajan, and Alan C Bovik. Making "completely blind" image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 20(3):209-213 2012b.
Shentong Mo, Enze Xie, Ruihang Chu, Lanqing Hong. Matthias Niessner, and Zhenguo Li. DiT-3D: Exploring plain diffusion transformers for 3d shape generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 117667660677777 2023.
Thomas Müller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexander Keller. Instant neural graphics prim- itives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 41 (14: 2022.
Chaojun Ni, Xiaofeng Wang. Zheng Zhu, Weijie Wang, Haoyun Li, Guosheng Zhao, Jie Li, Wenkang Qin, Guan Huang, and Wenjun Mei. Wonderturbo: Generating interactive 3d world in 0.72 seconds. In Proceedings of the IEFF/CVF International Conference Computer Vision, pp. 27423-27434, 2025.
Alex Nichol, Heewoo Jun, Prafulla Dhariwal, Pamela Mishkin, and Mark Chen. Point-E: system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts. preprint 2xXiv:2122.087// 2022.
14

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Julian Ost, Andrea Ramazzina, Amogh Joshi, Maximilian Bömer, Mario Bijelic, and Felix Heide. LSD-3D: Large-scale 3d driving scene generation with geometry grounding. preprint arXiv:2508. 19204, 2025.
Zizheng Pan, Jianfei Cai, and Bohan Zhuang. Stitchable neural networks. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16102-16112, 12, 2023.
Byeongjun Park, Hyojun Go, Hyelin Nam, Byung-Hoon Kim, Hyungjin Chung, and Changick Kim. Steerx: Creating any camera-free 3d and 4d scenes with geometric steering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 27326-27337, 2025.
Xue Bin Peng, Aviral Kumar, Grace Zhang, and Sergey Levine. Advantage-weightee regression: Simple and scalable off- off-policy reinforcement learning. preprint arXiv: /90.000777 2019.
Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. DreamFusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. In International Conference Learning Representations, 2023.
Mihir Prabhudesai, Russell Mendonca, Zheyang Qin, Katerina Fragkiadaki, and Deepak Pathak. Video diffusion alignment via reward gradients. preprint arXiv:2407.08737, 2024.
Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning. Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:53728 -37741, 2023.
Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bjöm Ommer. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10684-10695, 2022.
Aditya Sanghi, Rao Fu, Vivian Liu, Karl D.D. Willis, Hooman Shayani, Amir H. Khasahmadi, Srinath Sridhar, and Daniel Ritchie. CLlP-Sculpto:: Zero-shot generation of high-fidelity and diverse shapes from natural language. In JEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 18339 -8348, 2023.
Johannes L Schönberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. Structure-fromt ference Computer Vision and Patlern Recognition, pp. (10044113 13, 2016.
revisited. In JEEE Con-
Johannes L Schönberger, Enliang Zheng, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Marc Pollefeys. Pixelwise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp- 501-518, 2016.
Thomas Schöps, Johannes L Schonberger, Silvano Galliani, Torsten Sattler, Konrad Schindler, Marc Pollefeys, and Andreas Geiger. A multi-view stereo benchmark with high-resolution images and multi-camera videos. In /EEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp- 3260-3269, 2017.
2017.
Katja Schwarz, Norman Mueller, and Peter Kontschieder. Generative gaussian splatting: Generating 3d scenes with video diffusion priors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 275 10-2222,,, 2025.
Xiangwei Shen, Zhimin Li, Zhantao Yang, Shiyi Zhang, Yingfang Zhang, Donghao Li, Chunyu Wang, Qinglin Lu, and Yansong Tang. Directly aligning the full diffusion trajectory with fine- grained human preference. preprint arXiv:2509.06942 2025.
Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Long Mai, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. MVDream: Multi-view diffusion for 3d generation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2024. URL
.nt mete/forummiiiee Fug
Jamie Shotton, Ben Glocker, Christopher Zach, Shahram Izadi, Antonio Criminisi, and Andrew Fitzgibbon. Scene coordinate regression forests for camera relocalization in RGB-D images. In IEEE Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2930-2937, 2013.
Jaidev Shriram, Alex Trevithick, Lingjie Liu, and Ravi Ramamoorthi. RealmDreamer: Text-driven 3d scene generation with inpainting and depth diffusion. In International Conference on 3D Vision, 2025.
15

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Jascha Sohl-Dicksteii Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learn- ing. pp. 2256-2265, 2015.
Yang Song. Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In Interna- lional Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https:://///tttt //tpp//eeieeeeeeeeeeeeee/ee net/
Wenqiang Sun, Shuo Chen, Fangfu Liu, Zilong Chen, Yueqi Duan, Jun Zhu, Jun Zhang, and Yikai Wang. Dimensionx: Create any 3d and 4d scenes from a single image with decoupled video diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEF/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp- 13695-13706, 2025.
Stanislaw Szymanowicz, Jason Y Zhang, Pratul Srinivasan, Ruiqi Gao, Arthur Brussee, Aleksander Holynski, Ricardo Martin-rrualla, Jonathan Barron, and Philipp Henzler. Bolt3d: Generating 3d scenes in seconds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 118846-24857, 2025.
Jiaxiang Tang, Zhaoxi Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Tengfei Wang, Gang Zeng, and Ziwei Liu. LGM: Large muewi-view gaussian model for high-resolution 3d content creation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1-18. 2024a.
Jiaxiang Tang, Jiawei Ren, Hang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, and Gang Zeng. DreamGaussian: Generative Gaussian splatting for efficient 3d content creation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024b.
Zhenggang Tang, Yuchen Fan, Dilin Wang, Hongyu Xu, Rakesh Ranjan, Alexander Schwing, and Zhicheng Yan. MV-DUSBRR+: Single-stage scene reconstruction from sparse views in 2 seconds. In JEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5283-5293, 2025.
Genmo Team. Mochi 1. https:: /ttp:/:///tttbb/tt/ http://coo///o//////ooooooo
2024.
Qwen Team. Qwen2.5-vl, January 2025.
URL https: /twp:////w//lmmmmm github..h..... io/blog/
qwen2. 5 5-v1/.
Arash Vahdat, Francis Williams, Zan Gojeie, Or Litany, Sanja Fidler, Karsten Kreis, et LION: La- tent point difffusion models for 3d shape generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:10021-10039, 2022.
Team Wan, Ang Wang. Baole Ai, Bin Wen, Chaojie Mao, Chen-Wei Xie, Di Chen, Feiwu Yu, Haiming Zhao, Jianxiao Yang, et al. Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models. preprint arXiv:2503. 20014 2025.
Haiping Wang, Yuan Liu, Ziwei Liu, Wenping Wang, Zhen Dong, and Bisheng Yang. Vistadream: Sampling multiview consistent images for single-view scene reconstruction. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 16772-267883 2025a.
Haochen Wang, Xiaodan Du, Jiahao Li, Raymond A Yeh, and Greg Shakhnarovich. Score Jacobian chaining: Lifting pretrained 2d diffusion models for 3d generation. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 12619-12629, 2023a.
Jianyuan Wang, Minghao Chen, Nikita Karaev, Andrea Vedaldi, Christian Rupprecht, and David Novotny. VGGT: Visual geometry grounded transformer. In IEEE/CVF Conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5294-5306, 2025b.
Qianqian Wang, Yifei Zhang, Aleksander Holynski, Alexei A Efros, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Con- tinuous 3d perception model with persistent state. In JEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10510-10522, 2025c.
Shuzhe Wang, Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, Boris Chidlovskii, and Jerome Revaud. DUSt3R: Ge- ometric 3d vision made easy. In /EEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, pp. 20697-20709, 2024.
16

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Yibin Wang, Yuhang Zang, Hao Li, Cheng Jin, and Jiaqi Wang. Unified reward model for multi- modal understanding and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05236, 2025d.
Yifan Wang, Jianjun Zhou, Haoyi Zhu, Wenzheng Chang, Yang Zhou, Zizun Li, Junyi Chen, Jiang- miao Pang. Chunhua Shen, and Tong He. Sppi33: Permutation-equivarian visual geometry learning. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. URL https:/ // //pppreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee net/ forum?id-DDDD jngDta.
Zhengyi Wang, Cheng Lu, Yikai Wang, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Prolific- Dreamer: high-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distillation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 8406-8441, 2023b.
Rundi Wu, Ben Mildenhall, Philipp Henzler, Keunhong Park, Ruiqi Gao, Daniel Watson, Pratul P Srinivasan, Dor Verbin, Jonathan T Barron, Ben Poole, et al. ReconFusion: 3d reconstruction
with diffusion priors. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 11551-, 2024a.
Shuang Wu, Youtian Lin, Feihu Zhang, Yifei Zeng, Jingxi Xu, Philip Torr, Xun Cao, and Yao Yao. Direct3D: Scalable image-to-3e generation via 3d latent diffusion transformer. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:121859-121881 2024b.
Xiaoshi Wu, Yiming Hao, Keqiang Sun, Yixiong Chen, Feng Zhu, Rui Zhao, and Hongsheng Li. Human preference score v2: solid benchmark for evaluating human preferences of text-to- image synthesis. preprint arXiv:2306. 0934000000991....0 2023.
Xiaoshi Wu, Yiming Hao, Manyuan Zhang, Keqiang Sun, Zhaoyang Huang, Guanglu Song, Yu Liu, and Hongsheng Li. Deep reward supervisions for tuning text-to-image diffusion models. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 104. 2024c.
Jiale Xu, Weihao Cheng, Yiming Gao, Xintao Wang, Shenghua Gao, and Ying Shan. InstantMesh: Efficient 3d mesh generation from a single image with sparse-view large reconstruction models. preprint 4rXiv:2404.07191, 2024a.
Jiazheng Xu, Xiao Liu, Yuchen Wu, Yuxuan Tong, Qinkai Li, Ming Ding, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. ImageReward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text-to-image generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: -5959-19955,,,,,1111111999999335 2023.
Yinghao Xu, Zifan Shi, Wang Yifan, Hansheng Chen, Ceyuan Yang, Sida Peng, Yujun Shen, and Gordon Wetzstein. GRM: Large Gaussian reconstruction model for efficient 3d reconstruction and generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1-20, 2024b.
Zeyue Xue, Jie Wu, Yu Gao, Fangyuan Kong, Lingting Zhu, Mengzhao Chen, Zhiheng Liu, Wei Liu, Qiushan Guo, Weilin Huang, et al. DanceGRPO: Unleashing GRPO on visual generation. preprint arXiv:2505.0788 050.888888 2025.
Jianing Yang, Alexander Sax, Kevin J Liang, Mikael Henaff, Hao Tang, Ang Cao. Joyce Chai, Franziska Meier, and Matt Feiszli. Fast3R: Towards 3d reconstruction 1000+ images one forward pass. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 21924- 21935, 2025a.
Kai Yang, Jian Tao, Jiafei Lyu, Chunjiang Ge. Jiaxin Chen, Weihan Shen, Xiaolong Zhu, and Xiu Li. Using human feedback to fine-tune diffusion models without any reward model. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 8941-8951, 2024.
Shuai Yang, Jing Tan, Mengchen Zhang, Tong Wu, Gordon Wetzstein, Ziwei Liu, and Dahua Lin. LayerPano3D: Layered 3d panorama for hyper-immersive scene generation. In ACM SIGGRAPH, 2025b.
Xingyi Yang, Daquan Zhou, Songhua Liu, Jingwen Ye, and Xinchao Wang. Deep model reassembly. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:25739 2022.
Yuanbo Yang, Jiahao Shao, Xinyang Li, Yujun Shen, Andreas Geiger, and Yiyi Liao. Prometheus: 3d-aware latent diffusion models for forward text-to-3d scene generation. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2857-2869, 2025c.
17

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Zhongqi Yang, Wenhang Ge, Yuqi Li, Jiaqi Chen, Haoyuan Li. Mengyin An, Fei Kang, Hua Xue, Baixin Xu, Yuyang Yin, et al. Matrix-3d: Ommidirectional explorable 3d world generation. 2025d.
preprint arXiv:2508.08000
Zhuoyi Yang, Jiayan Teng, Wendi Zheng, Ming Ding, Shiyu Huang, Jiazheng Xu, Yuanming Yang. Wenyi Hong, Xiaohan Zhang, Guanyu Feng, Da Yin, Yuxuan. Yuxuan.Zhang, Weihan Wang, Yean Cheng, Bin Xu, Xiaotao Gu, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. Cogvideox: Text-to-video diffusion models with an expert transformer. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025e. URL https: / wppprevevvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ew net/ forum? d=I.Qz66TRFg'
Botao Ye, Sifei Liu, Haofei Xu, Xueting Li, Mare Pollefeys, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Songyou Peng. No pose, no problem: Surprisingly simple 3d gaussian splats from sparse unposed images. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https:
// //openreviee net./ forum? d=P4o9akekdt.
Hong-Xing Yu, Haoyi Duan, Junhwa Hur, Kyle Sargent, Michael Rubinstein, William T Freeman, Forrester Cole, Deqing Sun, Noah Snavely, Jiajun Wu, et al. WonderJourney: Going from any- where everywhere. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 6658 (658-6667,22 2024.
Hong-Xing Yu, Haoyi Duan, Charles Herraann William T Freeman, and Jiajun Wu. WonderWorld: Interactive 3d scene generation from a single image. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.
2025a.
Wangbo Yu, Jinbo Xing, Li Yuan, Wenbo Hu, Xiaoyu Li, Zhipeng Huang, Xiangjun Gao, Tien-Tsin Wong, Ying Shan, and Yonghong Tian. Viewerafter: Taming video diffusion models for high- fidelity novel view synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2025b.
Bowen Zhang, Yiji Cheng, Jiaolong Yang, Chunyu Wang, Feng Zhao, Yansong Tang, Dong Chen, and Baining Guo. Gaussiancube: A structured and explicit radiance representation for 3d gen- erative modeling. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024a. URL https: http///pppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee net forummiruiii/ Dtt.:iddDDD2222222E
Kai Zhang, Sai Bi, Hao Tan, Yuanbo Xiangli, Nanxuan Zhao, Kalyan Sunkavalli, and Zexiang Xu. GS-LRM: Large reconstruction model for 3d gaussian splatting. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1-19, 2024b.
Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as perceptual metric. JEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Puttern Recognition, 2018.
Shangzhan Zhang, Jianyuan Wang, Yinghao Xu, Nan Xue, Christian Rupprecht, Xiaowei Zhou, Yujun Shen, and Gordon Wetzstein. FLARE: Feed-forward geometry, appearance and camera estimation from uncalibrated sparse views. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patlern Recognition, pp. 21936-21947, 2025.
Zibo Zhao, Wen Liu, Xin Chen, Xianfang Zeng, Rui Wang, Pei Cheng, Bin Fu, Tao Chen, Gang Yu, and Shenghua Gao. Michelangelo: Conditional 3d shape generation based on shape-image-tee aligned latent representation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 73969- 73982, 2023.
Kaizhi Zheng, Ruijian Zhang. Jing Gu, Jie Yang, and Xin Eric Wang. Constructing town from single image. preprint 15x5 2025.
Tinghui Zhou, Richard Tucker, John Flynn, Graham Fyffe, and Noah Snavely. Stereo magnification: learning view synthesis using multiplane images. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(4): 1-12, 2018
18

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
A EXTENDED RELATED WORKS
Pipeline-based 3D generation. A common design pattern chains multiple modules sequentially: a first stage generates multi-view images from text or a single image, and a second stage lifts those views into 3D representation (Tang et al., 2024a; Xu et al., 2024b; Zhang et al., 2024b; Li et al., 2024a; Park et al., 2025). The reconstruction step is handled either by large feedforward model such LRM (Hong et al., 2024), or by per-scene optimization of NeRFs (Mildenhall et al., 2021) or 3DGS (Kerbl et al., 2023) (Liu et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2025b; Gao et al., 2024; Sun et al., 2025; Wang al., 2025a). In both cases, the generative and reconstruction stages trained independently, making the overall system prone to error accumulation (e.g., view inconsistency, texture flicker) and less robust to latent-space perturbations than joint formulations in latent space (See Section E). The per-scene optimization variant additionally incurs substantial inference cost.
A separate line of work pursues progressive expansion and refinement (Yu et al., 2024; Ni et al., 2025: Chen et al., 2025; Fridman et al., 2023; Feng et al., 2025; Yu et al., 2025a). Some methods adopt iterative warping and inpainting (Yu et al., 2024; Ni al., 2025; Fridman et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2025a), while others leverage video generative models to unfold 3D scenes progressively (Chen et al., 2025; Feng et al., 2025). Beyond these, additional works propose elaborate multi-stage pipelines that further increase complexity (Yang et al., 2025b; Ost et al., 2025). However, such designs are overly complex and suffer from slow inference.
Alignment for text-to-2D models. Several strategies have been proposed to align pretrained text- to-image models with human preferences: direct finetuning with scalar rewards (Clark et al., 2024; Xu et al., 2023; Prabhudesai al., 2024; Wu et al., 2024c; Shen et al., 2025), Reward Weighted Regression (Peng et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2023). Direct Preference Optiizationn (Rafailov et al., 2023; Yang al., 2024), and PPO-based policy gradients (Black et al., 2024; Fan et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2025). Among these, direct reward finetuning offers gradient-based feedback that propagates through the full denoising trajectory, which makes it natural fit for setting, where the reward depends on the decoded 3D output.
Concurrent works interchanging parts of VAEs. Concurrently, Chen al. (2026) replace pretrained VAE encoders with visual encoders that extract semantic representations. Their approach does not explicitly account for the compatibility between the substituted encoder's representation space and the downstream decoder, and consequently requires extensive retraining. In our frame- work, we measure the linear transferability between the VAE latent space and each layer of the 3D) model, and stitch at the most compatible layer, which yields well-initialized decoder that needs only lightweight finetuning.
B METHODOLOGY DETAILS AND IMPLEMENTATION
B.1 MODEL STITCHING
Stitching layer. We implement the stitching layer S as a single Conv3D layer. Relying only on Conv3D parameters align the spatial and temporal dimensions between the latent and the features from FR+1d can result in unnatural configurations, such as excessively large padding size. To address this, we first interpolate the latent representation to the target dimensions and then apply Conv3D, which provides cleaner alignment of spatial and temporal dimensions. This design still admits closed-form expression of the stitching layer, as shown in Eq. 2.
Loss function for each 3D model. We train the stitched VAE using an E1 loss between its outputs and those of the original 3D model. Since 3D model outputs often consist of multiple components, compute the & loss for each component separately and then aggregate them with weighted sum. Assigning equal weights can destabilize training and even cause divergence, since some components (e.g., confidence terms) have much larger scales than others. To mitigate this, we reweight the component losses to approximately balance their scales. The specific weighting strategy is adapted each 3D model follows:
MVDUS(3R. The outputs consist of pointmaps, confidence scores for the pointmaps, and 3D Gaussian primitives We assign a weight of 10-2 to the confidence term, while pointmap and Gaussian primitive losses are left unscaled.
19

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
VGGT. Outputs include pointmaps, depth maps, camera poses, and confidence for both pointmaps and depth. In addition, following VGGT's practice, we add gradient- based regulariza- tion losses pointmaps and depth maps. We weight the pose loss by 5, all confidence terms by
5 x 10-3, and gradient regularization losses by 5 x 10-3, Other losses remain unscaled.
AnySplat. Outputs include depth maps, Gaussian primitives. confidence for both depth and Gaussian primitives, camera poses, and anchor features. Additionally, we introduce gradient- based regularization losses on the depth maps. We weight all confidence terms by 10-2, gradient regularization losses by 5 x 10-3 Gaussian scale parameters by 10, and anchor features by 0.1. Depth and other Gaussian parameters are left unscaled.
Hyperparameters and implementation details. For the stitching layer S, adopt single 3D convolution with kernel size, stride, and padding chosen to align the latent features from the video VAE with the representation space of each 3D model:
MVDUS13R: 3D convolution with kernel size 5 x 7 x 7, output channels 1024, stride 1 x x, and padding 2 0 x O.
VGGT: a 3D convolution with kernel size 5 x 3 x 3, output channels 1024, stride 1 x 2 x 2, and padding x 1 1.
AnySplat: a 3D convolution with kernel size 5 x 3 output channels 1024, stride 2 x 2, and padding 2 x 1 x 1.
Before applying the convolution, the interpolation layer recovers the temporal dimension com- pressed by the video VAE and adjusts the spatial size so that it matches the resolution expected by the feedforward 3D model. The imput resolution of the video VAE is set to 384 x 384 for MV- DUS(3R and 512 512 for both AnySplat and VGGT, as these configurations empirically yield stable training for the respective generative backbones. scaling factor 32 to Conv2D and linear layers across all cases.
employ LoRA with rank = 64 and
B.2 DIRECT REWARD FINETUNING
scores and HPSv2.1 human preference scores to con- struct rewards for both nult image quality and 3D representation quality. Specifically, use DEN (Fang et al., 2024) as the CLIP model and HPSv2.1 (Wu et al., 2023). Given an image / and its associated prompt c, denote the 1PSv2.1 score as Shps and the DFN CLIP score Sclp- The quality reward is then defined as
Reward details. We combine
Rquality (L,c) Sclip (1, + Shps Shps (L, -,
which implies that maximizing the reward equivalent to maximizing the underlying score.
For the multi-view image quality reward, we compute the scores using the multi-view images decoded from the video decoder and their corresponding prompts. For the 3D representation qual- ity reward, we compute the scores using the rendered images obtained from the 3D representation reconstructed by the stitched decoder, together with the same prompts.
The 3D consistency reward is computed as a combination of the pixel-level & loss and the LPIPS between a decoded multi-view image and its corresponding rendering from the reconstructed 3D representation. Formally, given decoded image Jdecode and the estimated camera pose A predicted by the stitched decoder, we obtain the rendered image /rendered (f) from the 3D representation. The consistency reward is then defined as
Reonsistency ( decode Trendered (+)) =- - - Teeddeeed (+)) x (Jasodee Trendered (f)) (6)
Here, the negative sign ensures that maximizing the reward corresponds to minimizing both the & distance and the perceptual discrepancy between the decoded and rendered images.
However, applying these rewards to all decoded multi-view images and their rendered counterparts is computationally expensive. To reduce computational cost, we compute all rewards only on two sampled decoded views and their corresponding rendered images. The final reward is then obtained by weighted combination of the three components: the multi-view image quality reward and the 3D representation quality reward are each scaled by 1 1/16, while the 3D consistency reward scaled by 0.05. These scaled terms summed to form the overall training reward.
20

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Alignment Algorithm. For alignment, ward finetuning, which enables stable reward optimization through selective gradient computation.
adopt DRTune (Wu al., 2024c)-style direct
We outline one training iteration of our finetuning in Algorithm 1. First, we cal- culate the generative loss using multi- view datasets, then simulate the de- noising process. Since matching the full number of inference-time time denois-
Algorithm 1 One Training Iteration of Alignment Training
1: Input: generative model 6, reward r. sampling step range
T1, Ta.. # of gradient enabled steps K, prompt c, data D.
2: Tge calculate generative loss with 1)
3: t Uniform(Ti, T2) b Sample number of denoising steps
ing steps during training is costly, we instead sample / steps from a reduced
4: 2T ~ N)
> Initialize starting noise 5: Define L-step schedule (T) with To = T. =
range [Ti, 72] to lower the computa-
6: Limin randomly select K indices from (I.....4}
tional burden. Additionally, to reduce
7: for j = 1 to
Denoising from T to
time and memory costs, we only en-
8:
2r, t -sto_graa((zr)
able gradient computation at K selected
9:
if taain then
10:
prediction + model(0, &r))
training steps buain out of the total t steps. Following DRTune, the input 2 to the generative model is detached at each step to stabilize optimization. Fi-
11:
else
12:
no grad: prediction + model 2r,;
13:
Brz+1 + upuuupp(== prediction)
nally, we calculate the reward from the sampled latent and combine with the generative loss by subtraction (for max- imization) before backpropagation and parameter updates.
14: r(zo. c.) <- Calculate reward of generated latent.
15:
Luuall Lugen r((0, c)
16: Backpropagate Tamun then optimize 0
Hyperparameter in sampling process. For generating samples required in the [Ti, Tyl direct reward tuning stage, we set Ti 10 and T- = 50 in Algorithm 1, ensuring that the number of diffusion steps is smaller than the typical steps in inference. The number of gradient-enabled steps set to K = to reduce memory consumption during training. For scheduling, we adopt the default scheduler from Wan 2.1 (Wan et al., 2025).
C DETAILS ON EXPERIMENTAL SETUPS
C.I TRAINING SETUP
Setup for stitching layer search. To identify the stitching layer, we rely on representations from the feedforward 3D model and the corresponding latents computed on the same dataset. Specifically, we utilize a subset of the DL3DV dataset, comprising 200 scenes for VGGT, 800 scenes for AnySplat, and 3,200 scenes for MVDUS(3R, with only 13 views per scene used for the search. We limit our search to the encoder layers of each model, we observe that MSE values consistently increase within deeper layer indices.
Setup for stitched VAE finetuning. We train on combination of the DL3DV and ScanNet datasets, defining one epoch as a full pass over DL3DV and two passes over ScanNet. For each training iteration, number of scenes are sampled according the batch size. From each selected scene, we randomly sample 9 or 13 views to serve as input samples for training. The models are trained for 50 epochs in total. The batch sizes are set 12 for VGGT, 24 for MVDUS(3R, and 12 for Splat. The learning rate is fixed at 2 x 10-4 for all models with cosine decay scheduling and 500-step warmup. For training, we use AdamW (Loshchilov & Hutter, 2019), apply gradient clipping with norm threshold of 1.0, and use gradient checkpointing on each stitched VAE block reduce memory consumption. In addition to LoRA parameters, for AnySplat and VGGT, we also finetune register tokens and class tokens. This is necessary because we remove the earlier layers that originally process these tokens into intermediate representations, requiring adaptation of the token handling mechanism. We further utilize gradient checkpointing for every stitched VAE block.
Setup for generative model finetuning. We finetune the generative models using only the DL3DV dataset. For generative loss computation, we use a batch size of 12 with 13 views per scene. Reward calculation uses a prompt batch size of 4, with 13 views for AnySplat and MVDUSt3R, and views for VGGT. We again adopt AdamW with a learning rate of 1 x 10 10-4, apply gradient clipping at 0.1 norm, and train LoRA parameters with rank 8 and alpha 16. Gradient checkpointing is enabled for all model blocks reduce memory usage.
21

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
C.2 DETAILED EVALUATION PROTOCOL
Details for 3D generation evaluation. For T3Bench, we evaluate on all 300 prompts, in contrast to prior works that considered only the 100 sete--bbecetwit--surroooee
subset. SceneBench is evaluated on 80 prompts from the Prometheus3D (Yang et al., 2025c) prompt set, targeting scene- level generation. For DPG-Bench, we sample 100 prompts from the original 1r-pooppt dataset.
For Matrixx3Dommin we used their official code for text-to-generation and employed Panorama LRM for reconstruction during inference. For JDS-based methods like SplatFlow and Director3D that perform refinement, evaluated the final results after SDS optimization. We generate 13 frames for all models using 80 denoising steps, and apply classifier-free guidance (Ho & Salimans, 2021) with a scale of 7.5. We observed that the Gaussian splatting produced by the MVDUSt3R model does not generalize well across diverse domains, often failing to estimate the scale of primitives. To address this issue, we refined the Gaussian primitives using the source view for 100 optimization steps, minimizing reconstruction loss defined as MSE + 0.05 x LPIPS. For this refinement, we used the Adam optimizer with separate learning rates for each parameter group: 2e-4 for means, 5e-4 for opacity, 5e-4 for scale, le-4 for rotation, and 0 for rgbs. This lightweight refinement effec- tively corrected the scale estimation errors. For our texl-to-3DGS evaluation, we render 8 random viewpoints from the generated Gaussian Splatting representations for assessment.
We evaluate our method and baselines across a range of metrics. To measure the semantic similarity between the input prompt and the rendered images of the generated 3DGS, compute the CLIP score using the clip- hiip-it-baseepachhh patse--pachh666 model. Additionally, we adopt the VBench (Huang et al., 2024) framework assess key image properties. For Imaging Quality, which targets low-level distortions, we employ the same MUSIQ model (Ke et al., 2021) in VBench. For Aesthetic Quality, we use the LAION aesthetic predictor to evaluate the color richness and artistic merits, again following VBench. The predictor's native 0-10 rating is linearly normalized to a 0-1 scale for our analysis.
For more comprehensive assessment of generative quality, we utilize the Unified Reward model (Wang et al., 2025d), which is based on the powerful Qwen 2.5-7B Vision Language Model (Team, 2025) This provides fine-grained, pointwise scores on complex attributes equipped with a powerful understanding capability. By feeding the input prompt and rendered images into a format adapted from the official implementation script', we obtain scores for three key aspects:
Alignment: How well the image content matches the text prompt.
Coherence: The logical and visual consistency of the image, free of distortions.
Style: The aesthetic appeal of the image, independent of prompt accuracy.
This suite of metrics enables a robust and multifaceted evaluation of our model's performance.
Details for model stitching evaluation. For novel-view synthesis, we follow prior works (Go et al., 2025a;b) and adopt an 8-frame input setup to evaluate performance on target views. To accommodate the fixed-length input requirements of video VAE architectures due temporal com- pression, we pad shorter sequences by duplicating the final frame. For estimating the camera poses of the target views, we adopt the strategy from AnySplat (Jiang al., 2025), which jointly predicts the poses and renders the corresponding images. This contrasts with previous VAE-based methods that presume access to ground-truth camera poses for rendering.
For pointmap and camera pose estimation evaluation, we use a 13-frame input setup. Since our stitched VAB's encoder is video VAE, we arrange the multi-view images (typically provided un- ordered by previous works) into sequences with smooth view transitions to resemble video input. We adopt Pi3 (Wang et al., 2026) official evaluation code and follow their preprocessing pipeline.
C.3 SELECTION CRITERION FOR 3D MODELS
In this section, we elaborate on the criteria used for selecting 3D foundation models in VIST3A.
: http::/www..ccccceeeeoooooeaaaaa /tt Phtpps: http://eeee.tooooooooooooooooonn
22

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Table Ablation study on direct reward finetuning on SceneBench. We compare (1) no finetun- ing; (2) multi-view-only finetuning (generative loss only); (3) reward tuning with 3D-consistency reward only; (4) reward tuning with quality reward only; and (5) reward tuning with both rewards (full).
Unified Reward
Method
Imaging Aesthetic CLIP
Alignment
Coherent
Style
Finetuning-free Multi-view only
50.56
53.70
28.14 14
3.101
3.354
3.393
54.56
52.08
29.71
3.622
3.834
3.351
Multi-view 3D Consistency
38.67
50.59
29.77
3.581
3.767
3.275
Multi-view + Quality
62.27
58.23
30.34
3.643
3.842
3.358
Ours
64.87
56.96
30.18
3.667
3.862
3.400
Our primary criterion for selecting 3D backbone is the scale of the pretraining dataset, which mainly determines the generalizability of the model. This is because the coupled 3D model should cover highly diverse domains of video generative models. AnySplat (Jiang et al., 2025) is selected as it represents one of the few Gaussian Splatting models trained on such scale. For pointmap- models, we utilize MVDUSt3R (Wang et al., 2024) for its balance of dataset scale and efficiency (facilitating feasibility checks), and VGGT (Wang al., 2025b) for its superior performance and pretraining scale.
D FURTHER ABLATION STUDIES
D.1 IMPACT OF DIRECT REWARD FINETUNING
In the following, we conduct an ablation study to analyze the effects of our direct reward finetuning, comparing our full method against four well-defined baselines:
(1) Finetuning free: Here, use the original pretrained video model. Since our finetuning freezes the encoder, its latent space remains compatible with our 3D stitched decoder.
(2) Multi-view Only: The model finetuned with only the fow-mntching loss on multi-view data, serving as our primary baseline before rewards introduced.
(3) Multi-view Consistency: The model finetuned with both the multi-view loss and the 3D- consistency reward. This isolates the impact on the 3D consistency reward.
(4) Multi-view Quality: The model finetuned with both the multi-view loss and the quality reward. This isolates its impact on quality reward.
To ensure fair comparison against reward-based methods, which often take more time for one training iteration, the finetuning variant on multi-view data was trained for the same wall-clock duration.
Table 6 reports the quantitative results. The finetuning free baseline yields the lowest performance. Lacking any 3D-aware training, frequently produces geometrically inconsistent outputs and suffers from significant visual artifacts when its native resolution is adapted to our 3D decoder. Introduc- ing multi-view supervision (Multi-view Only) substantially improves 3D consistency and overall performance, confirming the value of this training signal.
The reward components have distinct effects when added the multi-view objective. Training with the 3D-consistency reward (Multi-view + Consistency) leads to notable performance drop, the model optimizes for geometric correctness at the expense of detail, resulting overly blurred images. Conversely, adding the quality reward (Multi-view Quality) achieves substantial improve- ments across most metrics by enhancing prompt coherence and aesthetic appeal.
Finally, our full method, which combines both rewards with multi-view training, achieves the best imaging quality and Unified Reward scores. While its aesthetic and CLIP scores are slightly below the Multi view + Quality variant, the marked improvement in imaging quality demonstrates that our combined objective successfully guides the model to generate visually sharp and geometrically faithful 3D representations.
23

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Rendered 3DGS
Decoded Frames
Multi-view only No-Finetuning
"In the open expanse of school's sports field, under the clear ble sky of radion: sunny day, four vibrant American footballs are captured mid-flight footbolis, fenturing buee ved, thue Each ball gliteos in the sunlight as they are gracefully above the field, mumentarily stopended aguinst the back backdrap of a few wispy clouds."
green, spherioat shape coutrastnng sharply with the gramn below
Multi-view only No- Finetuning
Ours
car parked on a street, its rear end facing away from the viewer against house and trees backdrop.
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison of different finetuning strategies. Pretrained video model (No-Finetmming) produces dynamic videos, causing severe ghosting the reconstructed 3D scenes. Multi-view finetuning (Multi-view only) reduces this motion and improves 3D consistency but in- troduces semantic and quality degradations, while our direct reward tuning (Ours) yields sharper renderings that better align with the input text prompts.
To further analyze the effect of our training strategy, we provide qualitative comparison between the pretrained video model, the multi-view-only finetuning baseline, and our reward-tuned model in Fig. shown the decoded frames, the No-Finetuning baseline (pretrained video generator) often produces dynamic videos with temporal motion. This leads to severe ghosting artifacts in the generated 3D scenes, clearly visible as multiple outlines of the footballs and the car.
The Multi-view only baseline (second row) effectively suppresses this motion, enforcing 3D con- sistency. However, relying solely on a multi-view dataset limits the model's generalizability. and the lack of alignment with the decoder hinders the model from generating latents that well recon- structible by the decoder. As a result, the generations exhibit semantic and quality degradations: the "green" football is missing in the first example, and the car becomes blurrier in the second example.
24

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
sitthed--Mean
stitched-Mean
sequental-Mean
1.5
sequental
0.90
stikched-Med. sequental Moc.
sttched-Mod. sequential Med.
0.6
1.0
0.75
0.4
stitchedMMaan
0.5
sequertial-Mon
stitched Med.
0.60
sequerziai-Med
3e-04
5e-04
Be-04
1e-03
3e-04
5e-04 Noise level
Be-04
1e-03
3e-04
5e-04
86-04
1e-03
Noise level
Noise level
(a) Acc. +
(b) Comp-I
(c) NC.1
le
7 Be
(d) Reconstructed images through VAE according
Figure 8: Pointmap estimation performance comparison ETH3D dataset between the stitched VGGT and the sequential approach (VAE followed by VGGT) under varying noise scales injected into the latent space. The stitched model demonstrates greater robustness noise injection in the VAE.
In contrast, our direct reward tuning (Ours) applies rewards to the decoded 3D representation of the stitched decoder, explicitly encouraging high reconstruction quality. 3D consistency, and better alignment with the text prompt. Consequently, produces sharper and more faithful renderings than the baselines in both examples.
D.2 BENEFITS OF INTEGRATED VS. SEQUENTIAL 3D GENERATION
In our model-stitching design, generation and reconstruction take place in the shared latent space of the video diffusion VAE and the stitched 3D decoder. A common alternative is sequential pipeline that decodes latents into RGB frames before applying a feedforward 3D model (e.g., VGGT) without further adaptation. To probe the core benefit of our unified formulation, injected controlled perturbations into the latent representation, using
+ a || E~N(0,,1,
where a a scalar controlling the perturbation strength. We then compared two paths: (i) decode the corrupted latent to RGB and feed the images sequentially into the original VGGT (baseline), and (ii) directly input the noised latent into our stitched 3D decoder (unified latent framework).
Figure 8 reports pointmap estimation performance ETH3D function of noise level Our stitched VGGT consistently outperforms the sequential secood-aandrecconstiee pipeline under noise injection, indicating that the VAE decoder in the sequential path amplifies errors. Moreover, as shown in Fig. 8d, the performance gap is observed even at noise levels (a = 1e-4 to 2e where visual artifacts hardly perceptible. This suggests that the unified design offers stronger robust- ness, as imperceptible perturbations from the noise of generative processes can already degrade the sequential pipeline.
E ADDITIONAL RESULTS
To comprehensively validate each component of VIST3A, we present additional experiments in this section.
Prompt-based camera control. Modern video generative model, including Wan 2.1, can reflect camera-related prompts such as "aerial view" and "camera pans left to right" in the generated videos. As our framework is built upon the Wan 2.1 backbone, we inherit this property, enabling text- driven viewpoint control in 3D generation. As illustrated in Fig. 9, the prompt containing "Aerial dronshot" induces a high-angle, lownward-looking perspective (Top), whereas the prompt with "Camera pans left right" results in horizontal sweeping motion that traverses the scene from left
25

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
FIG
"Aerial dronshot of a cozy outdoor café cobblestone street in European town at sunset."
"Camera pans left right around cozy outdoor café on cobblestone street in European town at sunset."
Figure 9: Viewpoint control in 3DGS generation with prompts. (Top) The prompt containing "Acrial dronshot" results in a high-angle downward perspective. (Bottom) The prompt containing "Camera pans left to right" generates trajectory where the viewpoint sweeps across the scene from left to right.
Table 7: Video generation performance comparison between the original video generator and
VIST3A on VBench.
Model
Quality Score
Semantic Score
Total Score
Original video generator
0.7827
0.7275
0.7716 0.7943
VIST3A (Wan AnySplat)
0.8143
0.7143
to right (Bottom). This shows that our model effectively inherits the semantic camera instruction understanding capability of pretrained video generative models.
Impact of VIST3A finetuning on video generation performance. We aim for video generative models to produce 3D-consistent frames, and we propose a finetuning strategy toward this goal. Here, evaluate how much this finetuning degrades the original model's generative capability. To measure this, we use VBench (Huang et al., 2024), well-established benchmark for video generation. We generate videos using the original model by matching the resolution the VIST3A inference setting, and compare the video results of the finetuned model with VIST3A with Wan and AnySplat.
As shown in Table 7, the A-dptA-d model achieves a higher quality score and a higher total score than the original video generator, with only marginal difference in the Semantic Score. This demonstrates that VIST3A's finetuning does not significantly degrade the video model's generative capability-in fact, the overall VBench performance is slightly improved under the VIST3A setup.
Analysis on searched stitching index. In Section 4.4, we showed that earlier layers in the network tend to be more linearly correspondent. We extend this analysis various VAE architectures, in- cluding Cog VideoX, SVD, Hunyuan, and Wan, paired with MVDUS13R and AnySplat, to observe the generalizability of this finding.
Figure 10 shows the log-MSE values measuring linear transferability between latents and the feed- forward 3D model's representations. From the results, early layers of 3d models consistently show lower MSE values across all VAE-feedforwaadd 3D model combinations. This supports the hypoth- esis that latent representations capture low-level features for input reconstruction, which are more linearly transferable to the early layers of the feedforward 3D model that also encode such features. However, the results reveal an important distinction: while relative MSE ordering within each VAE architecture correlates with stitching performance (as in Section 4.4), absolute MSE values across different VAEs do not predict cross- pross-architcctree performance, For instance, VogVideoX + AnySplat achieves the lowest absolute MSE (0.008) but delivers 21.32 PSNR in Table 3, while SVD AnyS-
26

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
AnySplat MVDust3R
AnySplat
10a
10a
MVDust3R
10
100
Min=0.409
Min= 0.397
10-1
10-1
10
10-2
Min=0.00
0.009
Min 0.008
5
10
15
20
25
5
10
15
20
25
Layer index
Layer index
(a) Wan
(b) Hunyuan
AnySplat
AnySplat
10a
MVDust3R
10a
MVDust3R
100
10
Min=0.461
Min=0.404
10 -1
10
10-2
10-2
Min= 0.012
Min 0.008
10
15
20
25
15
20
25
Layer index
Layer index
(c) SVD
(d) CogvideoX
Figure 10: Log-MSE values in Eq. across various video VAEs. Early layers of feedforward models show lower MSE values within each VAE architecture. While lower MSE correlates with better stitching performance within the same VAE (e.g., layer outperforms layer 16 for Wan in Fig 5), absolute MSE values cannot predict performance across different VAE architectures. For instance, despite CogVideoX and Hunyuan + AnySplat having the lowest absolute MSE (0.008), SVD AnySplat achieves the best performance (21.48 PSNR) in Table 3.
plat with higher MSE (0.012) achieves superior performance 21.48 PSNR. This indicates that optimal stitching layers must be identified independently for each VAE-3D model pair.
Additional qualitative results. We present additional qualitative results of VIST3A with Wan AnySplat in Fig. 11-13. Text-to-pointmap generation results obtained by combining VGGT with Wan through VIST3A shown in Fig. 14. Finally, Fig. 15 illustrates VIST3A results with MV-
Dust3R + Wan.
F LIMITATIONS
While our approach demonstrates strong results, it also has certain limitations. Our stitched model inherits its encoder from video generation model, which inherently designed for sequential, temporally coherent video input. Consequently, its performance is not guaranteed for arbitrarily unordered inputs, such as typical multi-view image datasets. To ensure the encoder operates effec- tively, the input images must be arranged into coherent sequence that simulates the smooth view transitions of video clip.
USE OF LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS G
LLMs were used exclusively for text polishing and grammar refinement.
27

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Director3D
Prometheus3D
SplatFlow
VideoRFSplat
VIST3A: Wan + AnySplat
"A small infant with round, xilver framed glasses perched their comfortably siting in the center plush white beal. The child, dressed in a pale yellow onesie, holds an open, colorful picoure book with both tiny hands, oppearing to gaze intenaly at the Ulustrations. Surrounding the infant ussortment of plush toys, including fbulfy blue beur and suft green frug, about suft, colored hoidd read."
"An imaginative unfoids with castle intricately constructed from golden tortilla chips, its and walls standing tall amidst flowing river of vibrant red salsa. Survounding the edible fortress, tiny burvivo, wrapped in soft sortillas with visible fillings appear to be animated moandering along banks of the salsa river. whimsicul landscape is upon large plate, suggesting playful. cullnary creation.
bluebird perchedl branch" "
"A wooden roching chair on porck"
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison of 3DGS generation. The top two rows show samples from DPG-Bench, and the bottom two rows present samples from T3Bench. VIST3A generates realistic scenes with fine-grained details that faithfully reflect the input prompt, outperforming baselines.
28

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Director3D
Promethcus3D
SplatFlow
VidcoRFSplat
VIST3A: Wan + AnySplat
"A coastal town buildings graen vegetation image. Severa recreational activities. The clear sky and calm waters indicate fair weather conditions.
shove, suggetling
gray metal folding chair is situtee behind desk. computer monitor is visible behind chair."
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of 3DGS generation on SceneBench. VIST3A outperforms baselines by generating higher-fidelity scenes with accurate geometry and appearance.
THE
gir! roating Aundeuver
intricatelyeareeel mooden
"The image is of many crrve in on othon onna
liced with mill buildins and partedd cars.
agad coleace ras compoi woner crcruut pabittr wwsdie relising the nol byckes Suatorad eaalyy maaleeyy offarr ani's mnsee nolley you vers marlle cosetoiig....
hartonnd derigeed stotys with rise pol pauro creat goldes piossi
docpe dipkios mouquet Seeeoud canyoe
insiione bitc wall
fow Sheckess mostivn AeChusss messiir oct pawe Bookoodd
cola wouthe contiion &usigh files thougg Arr comopy comig deystel Shakoes
The oler
fytsir Cigesrad unsh deokyet offoer fi ssage pustty oh www.eoooooogoooooooooooooooo
grownt Dayat follgg
Figure 13: Generated 3D scenes from VIST3A: Wan + AnySplat. These are 3DGS viewed di-
rectly in the interactive viewer. VIST3A preserves high visual quality even under noticeably altered camera trajectories, demonstrating robustness and stability across novel viewpoints.
29

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
"A zipe watermelon on piesic bable"
black groud piano koll
"d ceenherr-eniee wooden Bal"
"Two wor--out gym shoes are placed by the door"
"A rnd white candy Christmas tree""
"A materfail cascades dowa cliff
satsuched landscape with rough testire, perpective of moage reveale a rcale hetgit
franure, eaphastedd by elighlly belon vantage point
"A winding dis through buth with tall plants surrondding small wooden platform pecks from the folinge on the right ride of image, which bothed in notural daylight creating warm atausphere.
winding pash through forcst, tell plant and trees surounding it. roall wooden platfors peoks our from the foltage on the right side the which bashed natural leylightt creating uimsoppbore.
WOMBAT
"A diuing rosu aetting sharocesing unmsually lurge pepper with shiny, slightly urinkied sexture promincntlyy placed bezide a diminutive golden
vibrant graffit arworr diplaying the word "WOMBAT" in bold. mulliculored fenters, euch character ountinedl black crente striking contrast againss the variow shodes of blus, green, red, and yellow, with dramatic splathes of paint
polished wooden dining table. The peppor's 's vibraus hue contreuts with the wedal's gleaming surfece. The scene composed natural light, highlighting the intricate details of the pepper's surface and reffective quality of the medal.
ore oubellished the composition. The adds a dynouii and toctile quality to the mural.
woll.
of dripping
Figure 14: Qualitative results text-to-poinmap generation. By integrating VGGT, VIST3A generates structurally consistent pointmaps and fine-grained details across diverse prompts.
30

---

Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2026
Director3D
Prometheus3D
SplatFlow
VideoRI'Splat
VIST3A: Wan MVDUSE3
green cactis a clay pot.
"The image displays gray cabouct with closed doors situated open filled with stems. The appears to indoors,
possibly in store or office setting.
Figure 15: Qualitative comparison of 3DGS generation on SceneBench VISTA:
Wan+MVDUSS3R.
"A 20 avemated cxplmasee of Whely kennenffotri vtlaye Th cantry glve endenge poul gramy orher porinarl nodee hanse Sumor
made bhe ai soudre Arday the hadkgronnt ahalennd sossster and man ror apcour celgl catic aty wis foaing aleua: exthe world Mocty, dorgaed pooyl uost testroppe whll
"teaninnn-g lecssnpysie wlage in some glorsos lggh and gavtes foll d'fffeeees Resosa Sokl o'gok coloud wrchonsd coutve fuly
cals asciot massing aleee Patii clondo desf acrur Sbe sis connir rlasker on vilays iite, cuppest
lastiage
Macstyy wrwdy As
Figure 16: Generated 3D scenes from VIST3A: Wan AnySplat bt extending the number of frames. These are 3DGS viewed directly in the interactive viewer. VIST3A preserves high visual quality even under noticeably altered camera trajectories, demonstrating robustness and stability across novel viewpoints.
31


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "X2nkOpga0f", "reviewer": "Reviewer_BZA7", "summary": "This paper presents VIST3A, a novel and effective framework for text-to-3D generation. Its core contribution is a model stitching approach that seamlessly connects a pre-trained text-to-video generator to a powerful, pre-trained feedforward 3D reconstruction model, repurposing the latter as a strong 3D VAE decoder. This design elegantly leverages the geometric prior of state-of-the-art 3D vision models without requiring their expensive replication through large-scale training. To ensure alignment between the generative model and the stitched decoder, the authors further introduce a direct reward fine-tuning strategy. This technique aligns the denoising process to produce latents that are both 3D-consistent and within the input domain of the decoder. The experiments demonstrate superior performance compared with baseline methods.", "questions": "1. The paper demonstrates successful stitching across various model pairs. Could you elaborate on the scenarios or conditions where your stitching approach might fail? For instance, have you encountered pairs of video VAEs and 3D models where no suitable stitching layer could be found, and what might be the underlying reasons (e.g., architectural mismatch, vastly different representation spaces)?\n2. The performance of VIST3A is inherently tied to the capabilities of the chosen 3D foundation model. What are the key properties or criteria you considered when selecting a model like AnySplat or VGGT for stitching? For instance, how do the specific 3D representations (Gaussians vs. pointmaps), architectural design, or training data of the foundation model influence the final text-to-3D capabilities of VIST3A, and are these selection criteria generalizable to future models?(Note: This question seeks your insight and perspective, not additional experiments.)", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1. Novel and generalizable framework. The proposed model stitching method is a key innovation. It provides a cost-effective way to harness the power of pre-trained 3D vision models as strong decoders, eliminating the need for expensive training from scratch. Its generality is demonstrated by successfully combining different video encoders with different 3D models, enabling the generation of both 3D Gaussian splats and pointmaps.\n2. Thorough experiments. The paper provides compelling evidence through extensive experiments. It robustly benchmarks multiple model combinations against strong baselines. It also includes well-designed ablations that critically validate core design choices, specifically the stitching layer selection and the contribution of direct reward fine-tuning.", "weaknesses": "While the stitching itself is data-efficient, the subsequent direct reward fine-tuning is computationally intensive. It requires unfolding the entire denoising trajectory and backpropagating through multiple decoders and reward models, which is costly in both time and GPU memory.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "JraVtkvqQZ", "reviewer": "Reviewer_HSYK", "summary": "This paper presents VIST3A, a framework for text-to-3D scene generation that combines the power of modern latent text-to-video models with geometric abilities of recent feedforward 3D reconstruction models through a model stitching mechanism. The authors first identify the layer in the 3D reconstruction model that best matches the latent representation produced by the encoder of video VAE, and stitch the two parts via a lightweight stitching layer. Then, they apply direct reward finetuning to align the generative model's latent distribution with the stitched 3D decoder. VIST3A achieves strong quantitative and qualitative results on multiple benchmarks, outperforming recent text-to-3D Gaussian splatting models. VIST3A also exhibits promising qualitative performance on text-to-pointmap generation.", "questions": "* It is mentioned in line 261 that \"As we keep the encoder frozen, the generated latents can be decoded by the original video decoder to obtain multi-view images\", however, the latents produced by the diffusion model would have changed along the reward tuning, how could the latents be constantly decoded to multi-view images using the original decoder? \n* There seems lack descriptions for several notations in their first appearance. For example, $D_E$ and $D_F$, which are the dimensions of latents $B$ and activations $A$ respectively from line 223.", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 4, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "* Conceptual originality: first to demonstrate high-fidelity text-to-3D generation by connecting video generator and feedforward 3D reconstructor through model stitching.\n* Efficient training: the framework uses self-supervised alignment and reward tuning, reducing data requirements.\n* Modular and generalizable: the authors demonstrate the framework's feasibility across multiple video generators and 3D reconstructors, showing the generalizability of proposed method.\n* Superior experimental performance: VIST3A achieves superior scores on diverse benchmarks along with fancy qualitative results, exhibiting stable outperforming compared to baseline methods.", "weaknesses": "* Limited theoretical justification: while empirically compelling, the choice of layer for stitching is primarily heuristic (minimizing MSE) and lacks deeper analysis of representation compatibility.\n* Concerns about reward finetuning complexity: DRT requires full denoising loop and multi-view rendering for each step, introducing heavy computational overhead. The scalability to larger video models or higher resolutions may be challenging.\n* No human evaluation: subjective realism and prompt alignment are only indirectly assessed via CLIP/HPSv2 metrics.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "4RGwevzscB", "reviewer": "Reviewer_3u1z", "summary": "The paper introduces an approach to replace the decoder in a video diffusion model with a pre-trained feed-forward 3D regression network, such as one that can perform pixel-oriented Gaussian splatting or 3D point map prediction. The resulting model can then generate 3D outputs directly, for instance from textual prompts.\n\nThe method repurposes earlier techniques for networks stitching. The starting point is a video generator based on latent diffusion. This uses a variational autoencoder to encode and decode RGB frames into a latent space. The idea is to \"stitch\" (by means of a linear adapter) the given pre-trained 3D regressor as a decoder replacement, thus obtaining a new decoder that outputs a 3D representation of the generated scene instead of raw pixels. Stitching identifies the subset of layers in the regressor that are best replaced by the encoder, selecting this as a stitching point. Notably, the resulting encoded+stitched decoder can also function as a replacement for the original regressor, and in some cases outperforms it.\n\nGiven the new encoder-decoder, the diffusion model is then jointly fine-tuned with it. This step is necessary to ensure the old diffusion model and new encoder-decoder work well together. This step uses direct reward fine-tuning, where the diffusion process is unrolled and the output is assessed using image-based metrics, which are then optimised.", "questions": "* See above, what are the limitations of using a multi-view latent space instead of learning a “proper” 3D one?\n\n* How do the various image generators choose which viewpoints to (implicitly) consider for generation?\n\n* How do you handle potential dynamic objects in the generated scene?\n\n* Will code be released?", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "* The idea of using network stitching to add a deterministic 3D regression head to a multi-view image generator is creative, practical, and, empirically, quite effective. I think it is definitely worth sharing it with the community.\n\n* The paper also proposes a practical manner to re-adjust the diffusion process in the generator to adapt it to the new encoder-3D-decoder. The latter uses reward fine-tuning.", "weaknesses": "* Perhaps with the exception of direct reward fine-tuning, the model is not really learning a 3D latent space, but rather to decode a multi-view latent space to 3D directly. While multi-view is close to 3D, it may miss some important properties that a native 3D latent space may capture better, the most obvious one being extent. By this, I mean that the part of the 3D world which is reconstructed is commensurate to the part of the 3D world captured in the multiple views, which in general do not provide full coverage and may leave the final 3D reconstruction incomplete. This is pretty obvious from the “holes” in figure 1.\n\n* It is not clear to me how the underlying video generator decides to select the viewpoints that are (implicitly) generated. Likewise, it is not clear what happens with dynamic contents.\n\n* Eq. (2) measures the similarity of feature alignment to decide where to cut. However, the experiments in Section 4.3 suggest the obvious alternative to measure the quality of the new VAE in terms of 3D reconstruction in order to perform this selection. Why is the first option preferred?\n\n* I was a little surprised to notice that there is no supplementary material. Videos of the results would have gone a long way in illustrating their quality.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "3hwoCYNOHn", "reviewer": "Reviewer_yob1", "summary": "This paper proposes a method for text-guided 3D scene generation. The core idea is to align the intermediate layer features of the video generation model with those of the feedforward 3D reconstruction model, thereby improving the 3D consistency of the video generation model and integrating the two models to complete the generation task. The paper also proposes a post-alignment process to further enhance the overall quality and 3D consistency of the model.", "questions": "Please see the questions in the Weaknesses section.", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 5, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 3, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1. The motivation of the paper is clear and important. Given that there has been a lot of work on the pre-training phase for 3D scene generation, further optimization and post-training research have become particularly important at this stage.\n2. The logic of the paper is relatively sound. The proposed grafting alignment scheme has universality for subsequent research.\n3. The paper provides detailed comparison and ablation results. In particular, it has achieved sota performance in text-to-3D scene generation.", "weaknesses": "1. Although the grafting scheme proposed in the paper is reasonable, it has some core potential issues:\nBecause it relies on the alignment of hidden space features, the video model needs to be fine-tuned using multi-view data. This process may impair the generalization ability of the video model.\nSince the feedforward reconstruction model itself is also trained on multi-view data, its acceptable distribution is limited, which may also lead to a reduction in the generalization ability of the final model.\nMoreover, the capability of the feedforward reconstruction model itself will limit the capability of the entire framework, as they also struggle to successfully model some details (such as grass, branches, etc.). Will this be reflected in the video results of the model?\n2. The paper lacks qualitative ablation studies on the alignment step. What puzzles me is that the qualitative results presented in the paper seem to have a tendency of over-saturation. Is this caused by the alignment step? The multi-view data used in the training itself are all from real scenes.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Decision: Accept (Oral)