Cue3D: Quantifying the Role of Image Cues in Single-Image 3D Generation
Authors: Xiang Li
Zirui Wang
Zixuan Huang
James Matthew Rehg
Venue: NeurIPS 2025 spotlight ()
Keywords: Image-to-3D
Generative Models
Analysis
Primary area: evaluation
TL;DR: We present Cue3D, the first comprehensive, model-agnostic framework for quantifying the influence of individual image cues in single-image 3D generation.

Abstract: Humans and traditional computer vision methods rely on a diverse set of monocular cues to infer 3D structure from a single image, such as shading, texture, silhouette, etc. While recent deep generative models have dramatically advanced single-image 3D generation, it remains unclear which image cues these methods actually exploit. We introduce Cue3D, the first comprehensive, model-agnostic framework for quantifying the influence of individual image cues in single-image 3D generation. Our unified benchmark evaluates seven state-of-the-art methods, spanning regression-based, multi-view, and native 3D generative paradigms. By systematically perturbing cues such as shading, texture, silhouette, perspective, edges, and local continuity, we measure their impact on 3D output quality. Our analysis reveals that shape meaningfulness, not texture, dictates generalization. Geometric cues, particularly shading, are crucial for 3D generation. We further identify over-reliance on provided silhouettes and diverse sensitivities to cues such as perspective and local continuity across model families. By dissecting these dependencies, Cue3D advances our understanding of how modern 3D networks leverage classical vision cues, and offers directions for developing more transparent, robust, and controllable single-image 3D generation models.

Cue3D: Quantifying the Role of Image Cues in Single-Image 3D Generation
Xiang Li*
Zirui Wang"
Zixuan Huang
James M. Rehg
University of Illinois Urbana- -haampp-aa
https://ryanzl: github. htt.:liitttt..tt...eeeeee co/cue3d
Visible
Shape Meaningfulness
3D Visible
SSIM
Shading
Style
20 Visible LPIPS
2D Overall
LPIPS
Silhouette
Local
SSIM
Overall
Visible PSNR
Occlusion
Perspective
3D Overall
FS
Symmatry
Edges
LGM
LPM
CRM
SF3D
InstantMesh
Tralls
HunyuanaD-22
Figure 1: We present Cue3D, the first comprehensive, model-agnostic framework for quantifying the influence of individual image cues in single-image 3D generation. Left: Our unified evaluation of single-image 3D generation methods. Right: Performance robustness to the perturbation of each cue, lower values indicate higher importance. clarity; additional figures are available in the Appendix.
show representative methods on Toys4K dataset for
Abstract
Humans and traditional computer vision methods rely diverse of monoc- ular cues to infer 3D structure from a single image, such as shading, texture, silhouette, etc. While recent deep generative models have dramatically advanced single-image 3D generation, it remains unclear which image cues these methods actually exploit. We introduce Cue3D, the first comprehensive, aggostc framework for quantifying the influence of individual image cues in single-image 3D generation. Our unified benchmark evaluates seven of-t-oo--hee-a methods, spanning regression-baseds multi-view, and native 3D generative paradigms. By systematically perturbing cues such shading, texture, silhouette, perspective, edges, and local continuity, we measure their impact on 3D output quality. Our analysis reveals that shape meaningfulness, not texture, dictates generalization. Geometric cues, particularly shading, are crucial for 3D generation. We further identify rver-nel on provided silhouettes and diverse sensitivities cues such
Equal contribution.
39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2025).

---

perspective and local continuity across model families. By dissecting these dependencies, Cue3D advances our understanding of how modern 3D networks leverage classical vision cues, and offers directions for developing more transparent, robust, and controllable single-image 3D generation models.
1 Introduction
Generating 3D model from single 2D image is long-standing goal in computer vision, with broad applications in content creation, AR/VR, and graphics. Humans effortlessly recover 3D shape from single view by exploiting a variety of monocular cues 3 16
Decades of research in classical computer vision studied these explicit monocular cues for shape inference, including shading patterns 21 [33, texture cues [4],, silhouette contours [27], and many more. Recently, methods has dramatically advanced the state of the art, fueled by large datasets [1]] and advances in deep generative models [19]. These approaches can be grouped into three prominent categories: (i) Regression- based models that directly predict a 3D representation from the input image via feed-forward network (e.g., LRM [20). SF3D [6),, (ii) Multi-view methods that generates novel views consistent with the input image, then regress to a 3D model (e.g., CRM [55] LGM [49], InstantMesh (60). and (iii) Native 3D generative models that treat single-image-tor to- as a conditional generation problem in a learned 3D latent space (e.g., Trellis [56] and Hunyuan3D-2 (64). These approaches have enabled fast generation of textured 3D meshes from single image, with impressive fidelity and generalization far beyond earlier methods.
33 [2]
a new generation of
Despite this rapid progress, the interpretability of single-image 3D networks remains largely under- explored. Current models are learned end-to-end on 3D supervision, and they operate as complex black boxes: we have little understanding of what information they rely to infer 3D shape from a single image. Do these networks internally exploit the same set of visual cues as classical meth- ods [21 27 40 633, or do they rely on other information such as high-level semantics? Improving transparency in this process is important both scientifically, to connect with vision science and inform future model design, and practically, diagnose failure modes and biases of these 3D generators.
To address this gap, we present Cue3D, the first comprehensive, model-agnostic framework for quan- tifying the influence of individual image cues in single-view 3D generation. We begin by establishing a unified benchmark covering seven sate-oo-thhear methods spanning regression-bas basse,,, multi- view, and native 3D generative paradigms. We evaluate them on two standard datasets (GSO [12), Toys4K (47). For each predicted mesh, we assess (1) both 2D appearance and 3D geometric quality for the entire shape, (2) 2D and 3D quality of the visible surface from the input viewpoint, and (3) the agreement between output and ground-truth symmetry. As summarized in Figure Ileft, native 3D generative models consistently outperform other approaches across all metrics.
We then systematically quantify the significance of each image cue. Building on meaningful pertur- bations [14). we disable or modify specific cues, such silhouette shape, shading, texture semantics, perspective, and local continuity, and measure the resulting degradation in 3D output quality. Our perturbation analysis uncovers how modern single-image 3D models leverage image cues, revealing the following key insights. (1) Meaningfulness of shape, not texture, dictates generalization. For models to generalize, the input image must indicate meaningful shape that does not significantly deviate from the training distribution. When we disrupt this cue by providing the models with stochastic combination of textured primitive shapes [57], every method collapses with distinet failure modes. In contrast, the models perform surprisingly well on meaningless or random textures, with the best-performing models showing near perfect generalization. (2) Semantics alone are not enough; Geometric cues are crucial. Using a state-of-the-art style-transfer method (59), we convert images into artistic styles that preserve high-level semantics but often disrupts geometric cues like We observe a significant drop on the performance
realistic shading and texture, as shown in Figure 2 compared to the original images, underscoring the continued importance of geometric cues. (3) Shading is more important than texture. To dissect the contribution of different geometric cues, we dive deeper into the image formation process. Surprisingly, even when all recognizable textures are replaced by procedural noise, natural patterns, or flat gray, for several methods, the quality of the 3D outputs remain almost unchanged, as long as the shading is kept intact. However, removing shading causes a noticeable performance decline. We further discover an interplay between shading and texture cues: intact shading alone suffices to uphold performance regardless of texture content, but when shading is removed, preserving the original texture yields better results than substituting with

---

Style
Teature
Shading
Silooudtt
Occluvion
Edges
Perspective
Design
Pamming
Sca prxve
Edget Only
Figure 2: Overview of perturbations for analyzing individual image cues in single-image 3D genera- tion. Starting from the original image, we systematically perturb specific visual cues. These targeted perturbations reveal the extent which each cue influences model performance.
procedural textures or uniform color. (4) Models are overly sensitive to silhouette and occlusion. Dilating the object mask (without altering interior pixels) inflicts severe errors on regression-bann -based and multi-view methods, whereas one native 3D generator remains relatively robust. In contrast, occlusion of both silhouette and image content dramatically degrades all approaches. (5) Other cues have diverse impact. Perturbing perspective, edge, and local-continuity signals produce measurable performance drops that vary across model categories, which we provide thorough analysis in the experiments section.
Cue3D establishes the first unified, model-agnostic framework for dissecting how modern single-image 3D generators exploit individual visual cues. Our perturbation study reveals that shape, rather than texture, meaningfulness dictates generalization. Geometric cues, especially shad- ing, contribute significantly the 3D generation process. These models may overly rely on the provided silhouette. Meanwhile, edges, perspective, and local continuity each have distinct effects on different model families. By quantifying these dependencies across state-of-the-art approaches, Cue3D deep- ens our scientific understanding of image-based 3D generation, and provides potential guidance for designing more transparent, robust, and controllable Single-imag 3D generation methods.
2 Related Work
Single-Image to 3D. Recent advances in single-image-tor -o-33 generation have converged three principal paradigms. (1) Regression based methods 6 20 22
52 54 employ neural networks to directly predict a 3D representation, such as voxels, deformed meshes, implicit fields, from encoded
image features in a single forward pass. For example, LRM (20) and its successors [6] 52 utilize
transformer backbones to learn triplane representations, which are then rendered volumetrically, achieving both high fidelity and efficient inference. (2) Multi-view approaches 2 38 45
49 55 60)
follow two-stage pipeline: first synthesizing multi-view RGB images (38), depth or coordinate maps 335 55), normal maps [37 33]. or Gaussian splats 49,, and then reconstructing 3D structure from these intermediate multi-view representations. Decoupling view synthesis from geometry providing 64
enables the reuse of powerful 2D generative priors trained on billions of images 43
an especially strong texture prior. (3) Native 3D generative models 25
31
32
combine a VAE-based latent encoding of 3D data [26] 28 with a diffusion or flow model to generate high-quality and diverse 3D samples. Methods differ in their latent structures, input formats, and output representations: for instance, Hunyuan3D-2 [64] encodes point clouds to produce texture-free
signed distance fields, while Trellis (56) proposes sparse structured latent combining geometric and visual features, allowing flexible decoding into radiance fields, Gaussian splats, or meshes. Despite the iterations of approaches. it remains unclear what image cues these models rely on when producing the 3D output. In this paper, systematically investigate how different annle-imaae to 3D frameworks extract and transform visual signals from images cues into 3D representations.
Image Cues. Humans infer 3D structure from single images by integrating multiple monocular cues. Studies in developmental psychology and psychophysics show that the human visual system encodes properties like surface depth and orientation [10 27 46), and that internal object repre- sentations adhere to 3D constraints [44 contrast to humans' seamless cue integration, classical computer vision approaches explicitly leverage specific visual cues for shape inference- -ucch as shape-from-shading 21 23 texture gradients [24] 4T, silhouettes (2 contours and junctions
[9]. perspective effects [1 and symmetry priors 4 51] Modern deep models instead learn these
3

---

Regression-Bannn -aandeddddddd Models
Inpuat Image
Encoder
Decoder
Multiview Models
SF30
Muttiview
Fead-Forward Reconstructor
Image
Prgul Amage
Mal-Viww
Ociuut
Instrtmesh
Nathve Generative
Shape
Iopal Veage
HuryuanDD22
Figure 3: Illustration of the three single-image 3D gener- ation paradigms evaluated this paper: regression-based methods (OpenLRM (18), SF3D [6]), multi-view approaches (CRM 155) LGM 49 InstantMesh (60), and native 3D
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison the Zeroverse dataset of shapes without semantic meaning. We show one methods representative of each paradigms.
generative models (Trellis [56], Hunyuan3D-2 (64).
visual priors implicitly in an end-to-end manner, inspring explore the role of these cues in state-of-the-art models.
Visual Cue Interprefability. Interpreting the dicision-mmkingg process of black-box models, espe- cially with respect to the visual cues they exploit, remains an open challenge. A common strategy input perturbation, where carefully crafted modifications are applied input data observe the resulting changes in model output [14 15 50). For example, Geirhos et al. 15] generate images in which object shape and surface texture semantically misaligned, revealing the relative importance of each cue image classification models. Other approaches include latent-space probing, which trains auxiliary networks to investigate whether the internal representations of pre-trained model fit certain downstream tasks [3], and metric-based benchmarking, where models are compared artificially curated datasets designed to emphasize specific visual attributes
[65]. Our work is inspired by these cue-based analysis methods but differs in key ways. Rather than solely focusing on classification or probing general features for diverse downstream tasks, we focus on presenting an in-depth analysis within the scope of single-image 3D generation. We introduce agdel-ag framework that systematically applies controlled perturbations to distinct image cues and quantifies their effect. By evaluating range of recent 3D architectures and employing both 2D and 3D performance metrics, our approach provides faithful and comprehensive view of how state-of-the-art models leverage visual cues during singele-image 3D generation.
Cue3D
3.1 Evaluation Settings
Methods. We compare seven recent single-image-to-3D methods that collectively cover all three prevailing paradigms. In particular, we select OpenI.M RM [18] and SF3D ( from regression-based networks, CRM [55), LGM [49] and InstantMesh [60] from multi-view reconstruction approaches, and Trellis (56) and Hunyuan3D-2 (64] from native 3D generative methods. We use the official implementation for all methods and evaluate mesh outputs in a unified way. We use 8 NVIDIA L40S
GPU for all our experiments.
Datasets. We select two standard evaluation datasets for methods: GSO 12] a dataset of high- quality scanned household items, and Toys4K(47], collection of user-created 3D toy objects. We manually remove geometrically trivial objects (e-g., boxes) and balancing over-represented categories from these datasets. Our final evaluation sets contains 412 objects from the cleaned GSO dataset and 500 randomly sampled objects from the cleaned Toys4K dataset. Fach object is rendered in Blender from random camera pose (azimuth/clevation sampled within fixed limits) under a random Poly

---

Haven M HDRI lighting. More implementation details are in the appendix. To probe performance on shapes without semantic meaning, we additionally use Zeroverse [57]. a procedurally generated dataset built from random assemblies of textured primitive. Zeroverse exhibits rich local geometric detail, but the shapes themselves are not meaningful, as significantly deviate from the training distribution of single-image-to-3 to methods.
Overall Quality. We evaluate both 2D appearance fidelity and 3D geometric quality of the 3D mesh results. We align the output mesh to the groundtruth following [6] For appearance fidelity, we report PSNR, SSIM and LPIPS between rendered output meshes and groundtruth meshes. We render 16 views for each object with 8 uniform azimuth and 2 elevations. For geometry quality, we report the Chamfer Distance (CD) and F-scores at different thresholds to quantify the overall shape quality. The Chamfer distance between two point clouds P1 = {az E F Ti=1 defined as:
R-)== and P2 = {az E R fj=1 is
chamfer(PH, P2) = 2n
J. - NN P3) + Σ
Σ ,. NN(2,, Pi)1
(I)
2m
1=1
where (2 P) arg min x| x'|| denotes the nearest neighbor of source point æ in point cloud P.
Visible Surface Quality. Beyond assessing overall mesh quality, we specifically evaluate how accurately the predicted mesh aligns with the ground truth at the input image's ' viewpoint. We render RGB images of the output meshes from this viewpoint, obtain the corresponding depth map, and back-project the depth map into point clouds using the ground truth camera parameters. Subsequently. we employ the previously described 2D and 3D metrics on these rendered images and point clouds to quantitatively measure the quality of visible surfaces.
Symmetry. We further analyze the predicted object's symmetry agreement with the ground truth. Adopting the symmetry groundtruth generation procedure from [36]. we apply a fixed threshold to identify planes of reflection symmetry in both predicted and ground truth meshes. For each method, we compute a binary symmetric-or-not Fl score across all predicted objects relative to their groundtruth counterparts.
3.2 Perturbations
We assess the importance of individual image cues through targeted perturbations. By selectively removing one cue while preserving others, significant performance degradation indicates the model's reliance on that cue. Conversely, minimal performance changes suggest the model's 's invariance to that cue. Additionally, preserving single cue while removing most others can highlight its information contribution in the model's inference process. Below, we introduce the cues and their corresponding perturbations examined in this paper, illustrated in Figure] 2 Additional perturbation analyses are detailed in the appendix.
Style. We perturb geometric cues while preserving semantic content through reference-based style transfer [59]. We seleet six distinct styles: ink wash, line art, pointillism, flat design, oil painting, and sculpture. We manually curate five exemplar images per style. Each object image undergoes style transfer using a randomly selected style exemplar for each of the six styles. This approach preserves core 3D structure perceptually while altering geometric cues like shading and texture, shown in 2
Shading & Texture. Given their prominence as geometric cues, we jointly analyze shading and texture perturbations within the rendering pipeline. We perturb shading by rendering diffuse maps in Blender. Specifically, since the groundtruth texture in the GSO dataset has baked-in lighting, we employ an image delighting method [64] to remove baked-in lighting for the GSO datasct. Texture perturbations involve swapping original textures with alternatives such uniform checkerboards, Perlin noise, random textures from Poly Haven [T] and uniform gray. Each texture variant rendered both with and without lighting (diffuse)..
Silhouette and Occlusion. Silhouette captures global shape information, and many models explicitly takes object mask as input. We investigate its influence through mask dilation and occlusion. We first dilate the silhouette (alpha mask) of each object by fixed pixel width, leaving other cues intact. Subsequently, we simulate occlusion by placing scaled masks of randomly selected objects from the dataset onto the original mask boundaries, creating weak, medium, and strong occlusion conditions. Though occlusion partially hides image content, humans typically still mentally reconstruct the
5

---

(a) GSO
Method
Overall 2D
Overall 3D
Symmeny
Visible Surface 2D
Visible Surface 3D
PSNR f
SSIM f
LPIPS
CDxtuo0
FS
FS
PSNR f
SSIM
LPIPS
CDaum
FS
LGM
16.20
0.807
0.291
83.01
0.034
0.188
16.83
0.819
0.256
46.00
0,215
OpMnLRM
17.09
0.820
0.245
80.89
0,033
0.391
17.48
0.824
0.218
33,00
0.297
CRM
17.68
0.833
0.232
68.07
0.043
0.285
18.49
0.845
0.193
31.10
0,298
SF3D
16.71
0.838
0.219
61.58
0.059
0.488
17:27
0.839
0.187
25.70
0,411
InstuniMesh
0.849
0.192
19:21
24,00
0.424
19.98
0.862
0.159
41.82
0.087
0.894
20.08
0.863
0.143
19.10
0.497
Trellis
0,864
0.157
39.64
0.867
19:95
0.867
19.80
0.472
(b) Toys4K
Method
Overall 2D
Overal 3D
Symmetty
Visible Surface 2D
Visible Surface 3D
PSNR
SSIM f
LPIPS
CD CDuuuoo
FS
PSNR f
SSIM
LPIPS
.1100
FS
LGM
16.76
0.833
0.272
77.01
0.051
0.270
17.42
0.843
0.243
41.50
0.259
OpenLRM
0.853
74.79
0.419
18.51
28.00
0.351
CRM
18.21
0.860
0.214
61.88
0.064
0.321
19.45
0.875
0.170
25.20
0,370
SF3D
18.01
0.875
0.186
52.78
0.094
0.600
18.69
0.876
0.162
21.00
0.512
InstuniMesh
19.59
0.876
0.173
49.84
0.098
0.706
20.06
0.883
0.149
20.60
0.489
Hunyuan3D-2
20.79
0.893
0.138
38.65
0.126
0.913
21,08
0.897
0.124
14.90
0.590
Trellis
20.53
0.893
0.136
37.78
0.137
0.904
20.85
0.898
0.122
16.00
0.563
Table 1: Unified evaluation results the GSO and Toys4K datasets. Native 3D generative models
achieve the highest overall performance across metrics.
Overall 2D
Overall 3D
Symmetry
Visible Surface 2D
Visible Surface 3D
Method
PSNR 1
SSIM f
LPIPS
FS
PSNR 1
SSIM
LPIPS
CDx1u00
LGM
16.15
0.754
0.321
86.19
0,019
0.000
16.98
0.767
0.289
54.50
0.134
OpenLRM
16.86
0.761
0.283
96.59
0.019
0.200
17.34
0.761
0.252
45.20
0.193
CRM
17.17
0.771
0.280
81.45
0.021
0.000
18.65
0.791
0.223
40.40
0,200
SF3D
0.767
0.276
90.34
0.768
InstaniMesh
16.89
0.752
0.304
89.47
0.021
0.467
17.68
0.769
0.263
46,80
0.185
Hunyuan3D-2
0.770
0.258
78.09
35.50
0.239
Trellis
17.29
0.773
0.264
78.14
0.024
0.467
17.75
0.781
0.248
43.20
0.181
Table 2: Evaluation results the Zeroverse dataset of shapes without semantic meaning. Perfor-
mance significantly drops compared to GSO and Toys4K, underscoring the significance of shape meaningfulness.
complete 3D shape by leveraging shape priors. These variants test the model's capability to infer complete 3D structures despite partial visibility. Additional perturbation scenarios to the silhouette are presented in the appendix.
Edges. Edges are analyzed due to their role in separating surfaces and indicating curvature. We first extract edge maps using the Canny algorithm from input images. Two perturbation strategies are used: one replaces all internal object cues (except silhouette) with edge maps alone, evaluating if edges can sufficiently provide information for shape inference. The other softens edges by applying Gaussian blurring only in the local neighborhood of detected edges, merging adjacent surface regions visually. Significant performance drops under these perturbations would highlight the model's 's reliance on precise edge information, while negligible drop would indicate invariance. Additional edge extraction methods and results are included in the appendix.
Perspective. Perspective cue could indicate vanishing points and spatial relationships. This cue is perturbed by switching the rendering camera to an orthographic projection. Eliminating perspective effects enables evaluation of the model's dependence on perspective cues.
Local Continuity. To assess sensitivity to local structural details, we perturb local continuity by splitting image foreground into grids of n x n pixels and shuffling pixels within each grid cell independently. This maintains global structure while disrupting local detail continuity. Greater performance degradation under this perturbation reflects higher sensitivity to local information.
4
Results
4.1
Unified Evaluation
We begin by conducting a unified evaluation of seven methods on the GSO and Toys4K datasets. We present the summary of the results in Figure (left), and the full evaluation details in Table [

---

(a) GSO
row coe
(b) Toys4K
Speetbe 6% ReyoetS
neat poo
Figure 5: Quantitative analysis of image cue perturbations single-image 3D generation. We report Chamfer Distance (CD x 1000 for clarity; lower is better) for each model under different perturbations. larger increase in CD indicates greater performance degradation, revealing the model's reliance on the perturbed cue. A tabulated version of these results is available in Appendix.
Our results show that the native 3D generative methods, Hunyuan3D-2 and Trellis in Table clearly outperform other methods across both datasets. Generally, these two methods are closely followed by InstantMesh, the best-performing multi-view method, and SF3D, the leading regression- based method, followed by the remaining methods.
Regarding 2D appearance quality, shown in Table Oveeral 2D and Visible Surface 2D columns, native 3D generative methods have only marginal improvements in terms of PSNR and SSIM compared to other methods. However, they substantially outperform the alternatives in terms of LPIPS scores. This suggests that, although pixel-level statistics appear similar across methods, the native 3D generative methods more accurately capture higher-level visual information encoded by deep features.
The most substantial advantage of native 3D generative methods emerges in their 3D geometry quality, see Tveral by over 10 points in overall geometry evaluation and by more than points visible surfaces under our CDx 1000 metric. The visible surface quality assessments closely align with the overall geometry evaluations. Additionally, native 3D generative methods excel significantly in modeling symmetry, see Table Symmmetryyy column. They closely match the ground-truth symmetry across both datasets.
and Visible Surface columns. These methods exceed the next-best method
Comparing the two top methods, Hunyuan3I-22 and Trellis achieve similar 2D quality despite differences in their texture modeling approaches. Trellis demonstrates slightly better overall 3D quality, whereas Hunyuan3D-22 slightly excels in symmetry and visible surface quality. These insights provide valuable guidance for selecting the most appropriate method for practical, real-world applications.
4.2
Image Cues Analysis
this section, we quantitatively analyze the role various image cues single-image 3D generation. An overview of our key findings is illustrated in Figure (right). Detailed results are presented in Figure 5 Performances this table are measured by Chamfer Distance (CD, scaled x x1000 for clarity), where lower values indicate better performance, thus a larger increase represents significantly
7

---

Ieput
BF30
rslarWesh
Trput
9:30
Trailo
rque
SF3D
THe
Qualitative example of our image cue perturbation analysis. More qualitative results are available on the project webpage and in the Appendix.
Figure 6:
degraded performance. We show qualitative examples in Figure 6 More qualitative results available on the project webpage and in the Appendix.
Shape Meaningfulness, We probe the role of shape meaningfulness in two complementary ways: (i) Zeroverse and (ii) CutMix on GSO. First, we use Zeroverse [57], dataset comprising procedurally generated combinations of textured primitive shapes. We show qualitative results of representative methods in Figure 4 and the quantitative evaluations Table Figure [ shows that the input image does not correspond to meaningful shape, and has significant gap to the training distribution. Performance notably declines across both 2D and 3D metrics compared GSO and Toys4K datasets, confirming that meaningful shape in the input images critical for the generalization of single-image 3D generation. Native 3D generative methods generally maintain the highest overall quality, while CRM best recovers visible surfaces in 2D, and SF3D and Hunyuan3D-2 perform best in visible surface 3D quality.
the more meaningful
We further examine how the absence of shape meaningfulness influences different failure modes qualitatively in Figure and quantitatively in the Appendix. Regression- methods produce smooth, averaged back surfaces. We quantify this phenomenon by measuring the difference between each normal and the average normal truth, and we see a substantial drop of this metric on Zeroverse. Multi-view methods fail due to inconsistencies in synthesized views, as evidenced by decreased pairwise DINOv2 similarity scores, contributing to degraded 3D performance. Native 3D generative methods, lacking meaningful shape information, tend to hallucinate symmetrical completions, resulting in higher false- cess-posiivve symmetry detections. See appendix for the detailed results of these experiments. These diverse failure modes underline the crucial role of meaningful shape cues, particularly for reconstructing occluded surfaces.
local neighborhood, normalized against the ground
Meanwhile, to test shape meaningfulness. with minimal domain shift, we introduce shape CutMix variants on GSO. We combine parts of different GSO meshes to perturb shape meaningfulness, while keeping appearance statistics similar. We conducted several shape CutMix experiments of varying difficulty, Given two meshes M and N:
1) Half-and-half: We mix half of mesh M with the other half of mesh N to construct a new mesh from GSO meshes. This limits the distribution shift and preserves many local and global shape cues (e.g., surface smoothness, local symmetry), and also preserves significant amount of shape meaningfulness human perception. We show three variants: front-back, left-right, and top-bottom.
2) Default CutMix. We follow the CutMix [6]] paper and randomly sample an axis-aligned 3D cube within the bounding cube of the object. We replace the part of mesh M that falls into the cube with the part from mesh N that falls into the same cube. When sampling the cube, we pin one of its corners the corner of the object bounding cube avoid significant discontinuity in the output shape. The length ratio the object M are outside the chosen cube and remain intact. Meanwhile, the local shape cues are mostly preserved.
cube/ /ate//engthh /eenghh cube) is uniformly sampled from [0.4, 0.6). Most parts of
3) CutMix by Octant. We center each mesh and split it into octants by the coordinate planes (XY, YZ, and XZ. planes). Then we replace the part in each octant by the corresponding part from other random meshes from the same dataset. This variant still preserves the local shape cues, and it has significantly smaller distribution gap than Zeroverse compared to our original evaluation data (GSO).

---

Results in Figure 5 a) show that all variants substantially hurt performance. Notably, CutMix by Octant causes performance drop similar Zeroverse despite a smaller domain gap. Standard CutMix, which modifies only about 1/8 of the mesh volume, still results in large drops (e.g., 20 points for Hunyuan31D-2). Even minimal half-and-half perturbations, where shape meaningfulness is mostly preserved, typically cause performance drops of over 10 points, which is greater than for most other cues. This confirms that shape meaningfulness a dominant cue for generalization.
Geometric Cues (Style). To explore geometric cues broadly, we apply style transfer to preserve semantics while altering geometric cues (Figure 2) Figure summarizes the results on GSO and Toys4K. Performance significantly deteriorates under style perturbations. Sculpture-style images retain the most geometric information, thus yielding the smallest performance drops in general. Note that lower- pewforperooming methods show less degradation not because of their robustness, but due to metric saturation. Overall, semanties alone are insufficient; geometric cues are essential for reliable 3D inference.
Shading and Texture. We dissect geometric cues further by separately manipulating shading and texture, which are historically established cues for shape inference. Figure S presents evaluations across five texture conditions: original, checkerboard, Perlin noise, random Poly Haven texture M. and solid gray, each tested with lighting (w/ L) and without lighting (w/o L). Surprisingly, alter- ing texture while preserving shading minimally impacts performance for leading methods (SF3D, Hunyuan3D-2, Trellis). Multi-view approaches show slightly more sensitivity to texture changes but remain relatively robust overall. However. removing shading consistently decreases performance across methods, underscoring shading's ' significant role. Interestingly, there is an interplay between shading and texture cue: meaningful texture mitigates this drop due removing lighting to some degree, especially on Toys4K. These results highlight that texture meaningfulness is not necessary cue for generalizion. Meanwhile, shading is generally more influential than texture, with several top-performing methods exhibiting near texture invariance provided shading cues remain accurate.
Silhouette and Occlusion. Dilating object masks severely reduces performance despite unchanged interior pixels, indicating silhouette cues' importance. Trellis remains comparatively stable, sug- gesting level of learned silhouette invariance. Occluding both silhouette and content dramatically reduces performance universally. This shows the combined importance of silhouette and interior visual cues.
Edges. We probe the role of edges cue two ways, leaving only edges on silhouette and softening edges with localized gaussian filter. Edge-only input significantly degrade performance for most models except OpenLRM, suggesting edges alone may not provide sufficient shape information. Softening edges yields minor performance reductions, confirming edges are supportive but not primary cues.
Perspective. Switching from perspective to orthographic projection notably reduces performance, particularly for regression-baseds methods (OpenLRM, SF3D), indicating their reliance on perspective cues. CRM remains unaffected, since it uses orthographic images in training. Hunyuan3D-2 2 is more sensitive than Trellis, potentially due to its latent representation capturing perspective.
Local Continuity. Local cue scrambling significantly impacts regression-based SF3D, while other methods show varied but less severe sensitivity. Hunyuan3D-2 demonstrates the greatest robustness. However, all methods degrade substantially under extensive local scrambling, emphasizing the general importance of local continuity.
Discussions
Correlation of Different Cues. We choose our cues primarily based on their perceptual importance and interpretability to humans, rather than strict orthogonality. As noted in Section 2 our selected cues originate from psychological studies of human visual perception and have strong Toundations in prior vision research, as they represent factors that humans typically find meaningful. While some cues naturally remain disentangled (e.g., shading versus texture), others inherently overlap to some extent (e.g., style with texture).
We assess whether cues impact objects similarly by calculating per-object performance drops in CD for each cue and then computing the Spearman correlation matrix showing how similarly each pair of cues affects the same set of objects. We show
rank correlation between pairs of cues. This produces

---

Texture
Shading
Silhoueree
Occlusion
Edges
Local
Style
1.00
0.31
0.39
Shading
0.66
1.00
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.51
0.00
Input Image
InstanMesh
SF3D
Trellss
Silhouette
0.31
0.34
1.00
0.27
0.24
0.28
0.34
Original
54.5
61.6
39.6
Occlusion
0.29
0.35
0.27
1.00
0.19
0.30
0.31
Lin-ort
66.1
70.5
51.3
Edges
1.00
0.31
Line FLUX
59.1
674
50.0
Local cont.
0.39
0.51
0.28
0.30
0.27
1,00
0.47
Style
0.50
0.60
0.34
0.31
0.31
0.47
1700
Table 4: Line-art-to-DD case
Table 3: Analysis on the correlation of different cues. We
study (lower is better). Adding explicit geometric cues to line- art narrows the gap original images across three off-the-shelf image-to-3D models.
present the Spearman rank correlations (p) between per-object performance drops in CD for each eue pair. Lower off-diagonal values indicate weaker similarity in object-wise effects; the diagonal by definition.
this result Table 3 Importantly, this is a similarity ofa-yy---offfffeff analysis. It does not test statistical independence nor guarantee disentanglement.
The result suggests that overall the correlation is low. Interestingly, texture and shading cues seem affect set of objects in similar ways, though they are inherently disentangled. These results also indicate that, while some appearance-related cues partially overlap, the cue effects largely isolated at the level of object-wise impact.
Practical Implications of Our Analysis. To illustrate how our insights could inspire new research directions, we explore a line-art-to-3D problem: given a line-art image (in our case, extracted from GSO images), aim recover the underlying 3D shape. Pure line-art lacks surface appearance, and indeed leads to markedly worse 3D generation than original images. Inspired by our analysis, we enrich line-art with geometric cues by prompting image diffusion model (Flux ControlNet (DD) conditioned on line-art to synthesize 3D rendering-style shading and texture. We then feed these aug-aueeented images into off-the-shelf image-to-3D models (InstantMesh, SF3D, Trellis). As shown in Table 4 injecting geometric cues substantially improves performance, validating that our proposed insights could meaningfully contribute to future research in image-to-3D.
Limitations. While Cue3D provides systematic and comprehensive analysis of cue importance across seven oftte-of-thh-att art methods and two widely used datasets, there remain several limitations. First, our study, though broad, is not exhaustive; evaluating a wider range of models and datasets would further strengthen conclusions. Nevertheless, because our framework is both method and dataset-agnostic, it can be readily extended to additional settings. Second, our experiments focus on clean, object-centric datasets minimize confounding factors, but extending the analysis more diverse and nuanced real-world data could reveal additional insights. Third, although we primarily probe individual cues in isolation, understanding the interplay and correlation between multiple cues, beyond the initial shading-texture analysis presented here, remains an important direction for future work.
Conclusion
We introduce Cue3D, model-agnostic framework for quantifying the influence of individual image cues in single-image 3D generation. We benchmark seven state-of-the-arr methods across three major paradigms and two datasets in unified approach. Then apply targeted perturbations to individual cues like shading, texture, silhouette, occlusion, perspective, edges, and local continuity. We reveal that shape meaningfulness is crucial the generalization of single-image 3D generation, while texture meaningfulness is not a necessary condition. Geometric cues are crucial, especially shading. Our analysis further shows that the models might be overly relying on silhouette cues, while perspective, edge, and local continuity cues affect reconstruction to varying degrees. We hope Cue3D and the insights presented here will deepen our understanding of how deep 3D networks leverage classical vision cues, and inspire future work on cue-aware architectures, robust training, and diagnostic perturbation tests for more transparent and controllable single-image 3D generation.
10

---

References
[1] Poly Haven. https://pollhaaeen.cmm com/ 2025.
[2] Stability AI. Stable Zero123, 2023.
3
[3] Irving Biederman. Recognition-yy-coniee
a theory of human image understanding. Psychological
review, 1987. 2
[4] Volker Blanz and Thomas Vetter. A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. In Seminal Graphics Pupers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2. 2023. B
[5] Tyler Bonnen, Stephanic Fu, Yutong Bai, Thomas O'Connell, Yoni Friedman, Nancy Kanwisher, Josh Tenenbaum, and Alexei Efros. Evaluating multiview object consistency in humans and image models. NeurIPS, 2024. 4
[6] Mark Boss, Zixuan Huang, Aaryaman Vasishta, and Varun Jampani. Sf3d: Stable fast 3d mesh reconstruc- tion with uv-unwrapping and illumination disentanglement. CVPR, 2025.
23
[7] John Canny. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE TPAMI, 1986. 21
[8] Caroline Chan, Frédo Durand, and Phillip Isola. Learning to generate line drawings that convey geometry and semanties. In CVPR, 2022. 21
[9] Maxwell B Clowes. On seeing things. Artificial intelligence, 1971.
[10] James Cutting and Peter M Vishton. Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In Perception of space and motion. 1995.
[11] 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 annotated 3D objects. In CVPR, 2023. 2
[12] Laura Downs, Anthony Francis, Nate Koenig, Brandon Kinman, Ryan Hickman, Krista Reymann, Thomas B McHugh, and Vincent Vanhoucke. Google scanned objects: A high-quality dataset of 3d scanned household items. In ICRA, 2022. 2
[13] Mohamed El Banani, Amit Raj. Kevis-Kokitsi Maninis, Abhishek Kar, Yuanzhen Li, Michael Rubinstein, Deqing Sun, Leonidas Guibas, Justin Johnson, and Varun Jampani. Probing the 3d awareness of visual foundation models. CVPR, 2024.
[14] Ruth C Fong and Andrea Vedaldi. Interpretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful perturbation. In ICCV, 2017.
[15] Robert Geirhos, Patricia Rubisch, Claudio Michaelis, Matthias Bethge, Felix A Wichmann, and Wieland Brendel. Imagenet-trainee CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness. In ICLR, 2018. 4
[16] James Gibson. The perception of the visual world. 1950.
[17] Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. Multiple view geometry in computer vision. Cambridge university press, 2003.
[18] Zexin He and Tengfei Wang. OpenIrm: Open-source large reconstruction models. https://github htmm33DToiaa/ppenlaa 2023.
[19] Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Picter Abboel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. NewrIPS, 2020.
[20] 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. In ICLR, 2024.
[21] Berthold KP Horn Shape from shading: A method for obtaining the shape of a smooth opaque object from one view. MIT Tech. Rep., 1970.
[22] Zixuan Huang, Stefan Stojanov, Anh Thai, Varun Jampani, and James M Rehg. Zeroshape: Regression- based zero-shot shape reconstruction. In CVPR, 2024. 3
[23] Katsushi Ikeuchi and Berthold KP Horn. Numerical shape from shading and occluding boundaries. Artificial intelligence, 1981. 3

---

[24] Bela Julesz. Textons, the elements of texture perception, and their interactions. Nature. 1981.
[25] Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. Shap-E: Generating conditional 3d implicit functions. ArXiv, 2023.
[26] Diederik Kingma, Max Welling, et al. Auto-encoding variational Bayes, 2013.
[27] Jan Koenderink and Andrea Van Doom. Surface shape and curvature scales. Image and vision computing, 1992.
[28] Adam R Kosiorck, Heiko Strathmann, Daniel Zoran, Pol Moreno, Rosalia Schneider, Sona Mokrá, and
Danilo Jimenez Rezende. Nerf-vac: A geometry aware 3d scene generative model. In ICML, 2021.
[29] Kiriakos N Kutulakos and Steven M Seitz. A theory of shape by space carving. IJCV, 2000.
[30] Black Forest Labs. Flux.
labssflub 2024.
TO
[31] Yushi Lan, Fangzhou Hong, Shuai Yang. Shangchen Zhou, Xuyi Meng, Bo Dai, Xingang Pan, and Chen Change Loy. Ln3diff: Scalable latent neural fields diffusion for speedy 3D generation. In ECCV, 2024.
X
[32] Yushi Lan, Shangehen Zhou, Zhaoyang Lyu, Fangzhou Hong. Shuai Yang, Bo Dai, Xingang Pan, and Chen Change Loy. Gaussiananything: Interactive point cloud latent diffusion for 3D generation. In ICLR,
2025. S
[33] Michael Landy, Laurence Maloney, Elizabeth Johnston. and Mark Young. Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion. Vision research, 1995. 2
[34] Aldo Laurentini. The visual hull concept for silhouette- based image understanding. TPAMI, 1994,
[35] Weiyu Li, Rui Chen, Xuelin Chen, and Ping Tan. Sweetdreamer: Aligning geometric priors in 2d diffusion for consistent text-to-3d. ArXiv, 2023. 3
[36] Xiang Li, Zixuan Huang, Anh Thai, and James M Rehg. Symmetry strikes back: From single-imag symmetry detection to 3D generation. In CVPR, 2025. 5
[37] Minghua Liu, Chong Zeng. Xinyue Wei, Ruoxi Shi, Linghao Chen, Chao Xu, Mengqi Zhang, Zhaoning Wang. Xiaoshuai Zhang. Isabella Liu, et al. Meshformer: High-quality mesh generation with 3d 3d-guided reconstruction model. ArXiv, 2024.
[38] Ruoshi Liu, Rundi Wu, Basile Van Hoorick, Pavel Tokmakov, Sergey Zakharov, and Carl Vondrick. Zero-I-to-3: Zero-shot image to 3D object. In ICCV, 2023.
[39] Xiaoxiao Long. Yuan-Chen Guo, Cheng Lin, Yuan Liu, Zhiyang Dou, Lingjie Liu, Yuexin Ma, Song-Har Hai Zhang, Mare Habermann, Christian Theobalt, et al. Wonder3d: Single image to 3d using cross-domain diffusion. In CVPR, 2024. B
[40] Jitendra Malik and Ruth Rosenholtz. Computing local surface orientation and shape from texture for curved surfaces. IJCV, 1997. 2
[41] Alex P Pentland. Shading into texture. Artificial Intelligence, 1986.
[42] Vilayanur S Ramachandran, Perception of shape from shading. Nature, 1988.
[43] Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffiusion models. In CVPR, 2022. 3
[44] Roger N Shepard and Jacqueline Metzler. Mental rotation of three- dire-dimensional objects. Science, 1971. 3
[45] Yichun Shi, Peng Wang, Jianglong Ye, Mai Long, Kejie Li, and Xiao Yang. Mydream: Multi-view diffuusin for 3d generation. ArXiv, 2023. 3
[46] Elizabeth Spelke, Sang Ah Lee, and Véronique Izard. Beyond core knowledge: Natural geometry. Cognitive science, 2010. 3
[47] Stefan Stojanov, Anh Thai, and James M Rebg. Using shape to categorize: Low-shot learning with an explicit shape bias. In CVPR, 2021. 2
[48] Zhuo Su. Jiehua Zhang. Longguang Wang. Hua Zhang, Zhen Liu, Matti Pietikäinen, and Li Liu. Lightweight pixel difference networks for efficient visual representation learning. IEEE TPAMI, 2023. 21
12

---

[49] Jiaxiang Tang, Zhaoxi Chen, Xiaokang Chen, Tengfei Wang, Gang Zeng. and Ziwei Liu. Lgm: Large multi-view gaussian model for high-resolution 3D content creation. In ECCV, 2024.
[50] Maxim Tatarchenko, Stephan R Richter, René Ranftl, Zhuwen Li, Vladlen Koltun, and Thomas Brox. What do single-view 3d reconstruction networks learn? In CVPR, 2019. 4
[51] Schastian Thrun and Ben Wegbreit, Shape from symmetry. In ICCV, 2005.
[52] Dmitry Tochilkin, David Pankratz, Zexiang Liu, Zixuan Huang. Adam Letts, Yangguang Li, Ding Liang. Christian Laforte, Varun Jampani, and Yan-Pei Cao. Triposr: Fast 3d ohject reconstruction from single image. ArXiv, 2024. B
[53] Arash Vahdat, Francis Williams, Zan Gojeic, Or Litany, Sanja Fidler, Karsten Kreis, et al. Lion: Latent point diffusion models 3d shape generation. NeurIPS, 2022.
[54] Nanyang Wang, Yinda Zhang, Zhuwen Li, Yanwei Fu, Wei Liu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Pixel2mesh: Generating 3d mesh models from single rgb images. In ECCV, 2018,
[55] Zhengyi Wang, Yikai Wang, Yifei Chen, Chendong Xiang, Shuo Chen, Dajiang Yu, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Crm: Single image to 3D textured mesh with convolutional reconstruction model. In ECCV, 2024. 3
[56] Jianfeng Xiang, Zelong Lv, Sicheng Xu, Yu Deng, Ruicheng Wang, Bowen Zhang, Dong Chen, Xin Tong, and Jiaolong Yang. Structured 3d latents for scalable and versatile 3d generation. CVPR, 2025
[57] Desai Xie, Sai Bi, Zhixin Shu, Kai Zhang, Zexiang Xu. Yi Zhou, Sören Pirk, Arie Kaufman, Xin Sun, and Hao Tan. Lrm-zero: Training large reconstruction models with synthesized data. ArXiv, 2024
[58] Saining Xie and Zhuowen Tu. Holistically-nested edge detection. In ICCV, 2015. 21
[59] Peng Xing, Haofan Wang, Yanpeng Sun, Qixun Wang, Xu Bai, Hao Ai, Renyuan Huang, and Zechao L.i. Csgo: Content-style composition in text-to-image generation. ArXiv, 2024.
[60] Jiale Xu, Weihao Cheng, Yiming Gao, Xintao Wang, Shenghua Gao, and Ying Shan. Instantmesh: Efficient
3d mesh generation from single image with sparse-view large reconstruction models. ArXiv, 2024. 2
[61] Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, Seong Joon Oh, Sanghyuk Chun, Junsuk Choe, and Youngjoon Yoo. CutMix: Regularization strategy train strong classifiers with localizable features. In ICCV, 2019. g
[62] Longwen Zhang. Ziyu Wang, Qixuan Zhang, Qiwei Qiu, Angi Pang. Haoran Jiang, Wei Yang. Lan Xu, and Jingyi Yu. Clay: A controllable large-scale generative model for creating high-quality 3D assets. ACM TOG, 2024. 3
[63] Ruo Zhang, Ping-Sing Tsai, James Edwin Cryer. and Mubarak Shah. TPAMI, 1999. 2
a survey.
[64] Zibo Zhao, Zeqiang Lai, Qingxiang Lin, Yunfei Zhao, Haolin Liu, Shuhui Yang, Yifei Feng, Mingxin Yang, Sheng Zhang. Xianghui Yang. et al. Hunyuan3D 2.0: Scaling diffusion models for high resolution textured 3d assets generation. ArXiv, 2025.
3
[65] Yefan Zhou, Yiru Shen, Yujun Yan, Chen Feng, and Yaoqing Yang. A dataset-dispersion perspective on reconstruction versus recognition in single-view 3D reconstruction networks. In 3DV, 2021.
Claims
Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
The main claims can supported by the experiments and ablation studies.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.
13

---

The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize other settings.
is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as is clear that these goals not attained by the paper.
2. Limitations
Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
We have discussed the limitations in the appendix.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.
The authors encouraged to create separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, c.g., if the approach was only tested few datasets with few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't 't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an impor- tant role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community, Reviewers penalize honesty concerning limitations.
will be specifically instructed
3. Theory assumptions and proofs
Question: For each theoreticall result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
The paper does not include theoretical results.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross- referenced.
All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide short proof sketch provide intuition.
Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
4. Experimental result reproducibility
14

---

Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results the paper to the extent that affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The paper fully disclose the information needed reproduce the main experi- mental results of the paper. All codes and results will be released.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
If the contribution is a dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken make their results reproducible or verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g.. in the case of large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, other means that appropriate to the research performed.
also be provided via detailed
While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submis- sions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make clear how reproduce that algorithm. (b) If the contribution is primarily new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.
(c) the contribution is a new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either be way to access this model for reproducing the results or way to reproduce the model (e.g.. with an open-source source dataset instructions for how to construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.
5. Open access to data and code
Question: Does the paper provide open tions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
the data and code, with sufficient instruc-
Answer: [No]
Justification: We will release our code repository upon acceptance. We are use public code for the methods and open datasets.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https://nips.co co/
for more details.
While we encourage the release of code and data, we understand that this might not be possible, so "No" is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (e.g., for new open-source benchmark).
15

---

The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https
wwtpibbmmsssoooooooooooo for more details. htt.pp.cc/pblllc/guuddeeee Ssw.eedeee/eeoeSeeessiiiississse
The authors should provide instructions data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. only subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) recommended, but including URLs to data and code permitted.
6. Experimental setting/details
Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The paper specify all the training and test details in Section B and the appendix.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented in the core the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, as supplemental material.
7. Experiment statistical significance
Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [No]
Justification: We provide variants for different random seeds in the appendix. Our conclusion drawn from our experiments statistically significant.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results accompanied by error bars, confi- dence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).
The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).
should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.
It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates).
If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures tables in the text.
8. Experiments compute resources
16

---

Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed reproduce the experiments?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The paper provides the GPU resources needed.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs well estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary failed experiments that didn't make into the paper).
9. Code of ethics
Question:
Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics otfisshhttsss//rrrppp......oblb wwtppccwcppcecceeeeeeeecccceceee ctw.etthiiisieeeliiieeeeeee
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We do not introduce any potential deviation from the NeurIPS Code of Ethics in our paper.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is special consid- eration due to laws or regulations their jurisdiction).
Broader impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
We include this discussion the appendix.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.
If the authors answer NA No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.
Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious unintended uses (e.g.. disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deploymentt of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional unintentional) misuse of the technology.
17

---

If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition attacks. mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of MI.).
11. Safeguards
Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA]
Justification: The paper poses such risks.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
recognize that providing effective safeguards challenging, and many papers do not require this, but encourage authors to take this into account and make best faith effort.
Licenses for existing assets
Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g.. code, data, models), used in the paper. properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We cite every resource (such models and benchmarks) used in this work. Please refer to Section 3 We also follow the the license and terms of use of corresponding models and data.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.
The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package dataset.
The authors should state which version of the asset used and, possible, include URL.
The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.
For scraped data from a particular source (c.g.. website). the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, wwwppsaiithhhcooooooo thcode. com/ datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license dataset.
For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if has changed) should be provided.
this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's 's creators.
13. New assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
The paper does not release assets.
Guidelines:
18

---

The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/moddl part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used.
At submission time, remember anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
14. Crowdsourcing and research with human subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: The paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsoureing nor research with human subjects.
Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribu- tion of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included the main paper.
According the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects
Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: The paper does not involve crowdsoureing nor research with human subjects.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Depending the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurlPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such the institution conducting the review.
16. Declaration of LLM usage
Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods this research? Note that the LLM is used only for writing, editing, formatting purposes and does not impact the core methodology, scientific rigorousness, or originality of the research, declaration is not required.
Answer: [NA]
Justification: The core method development in this research does not involve LLMs as any important, original, or non-standard components.
Guidelines:
19

---

The answer NA means that the core method development in this research does not involve LLMs as any important. original, non non-standard components.
Please refer to our LLM policy (https://neurip:: /ttp://pp.ccc//offfeeeee//////// for what should or should not be described.
20

---

This appendix is structured as follows: in Section 7.1, we present additional Cue3D results, including full quantitative tables for all perturbations and additional perturbation results including silhouette, edges, lighting, and specularity. In Section 7.2, we provide comprehensive qualitative galleries across perturbations and datasets. In Section 8, we detail implementation and evaluation. We analyze paradigm-speciffe failure modes on Zeroverse, report variance from viewpoint-sampling seeds, and discuss implementation details of our evaluation protocol (alignment, metrics) and perturbation construction, along with an additional performance analysis for GSO. In Section 9, we further discuss our broader impact.
7
Additional Results on Cue3D
7.1
Quantitative Results
In Section 4.2 of the main paper, we discussed the results of our perturbation experiments. We present the quantitative results in Figure We show the tabular version of this figure in Table
Silhouette and Edges. In addition, we report additional perturbation results on silhouette and edges in G
For the silhouette cue, we introduce an additional perturbation called Manhattan dilation. Unlike standard uniform dilation, Manhattan dilation expands the mask boundaries exclusively produce blocky, axis-aligned edges with each boundary line segment at least pixels length (where N is set to 5, 20, and 40 for our weak, medium, and strong variants, respectively). This approach further disrupts the shape information contained in the silhouette. Notably, we find that Manhattan dilation leads to greater performance drop in regression-basee -based and multi-view methods compared to simple dilation, whereas native 3D generative models exhibit increased robustness. This suggests that native 3D generative methods rely more heavily extracting 3D shape cues from the overall image content, while regression- based and multi-view approaches are more overly dependent on the shape information in the silhouettes.
For the edges cue, we evaluate range of edge extraction algorithms, including Canny HED 58 Lineart [8) and PIDI 48 While the degree of performance degradation varies across models and extraction methods, our core finding remains consistent: edge information-whelee alone (combined with silhouette) is insufficient for current models to generate high-quality 3D shapes.
Lighting and material cues. Beyond the cues analyzed in the main text, illumination and material are additional, impactful factors. We conduct a targeted study
properties (c.g., specularity/rouuhheee on GSO to quantify how lighting type (environment map vs. directional) and specularity level (default vs. large) affect -mgge--mage 3D reconstruction. We report Chamfer Distance (CDx 1000, lower better) across six models and show deltas relative the environment wwwpeeettam///faatt--aaaaa specullaryy baseline. Two trends emerge: (i) directional lighting degrades performance for most models (the effect is weakest for Huny and (ii) large specularity slightly improved performance in several cases, though not always, with the exception of OpenI RRM and Hunyuan3D-2.. We speculate that this might be related the different lighting setup used each model's training.
7.2 Qualitative Results
We present an example of qualitative results in Figure 6 of the main paper. Comprehensive qualitative results for all perturbations from these results are consistent with our quantitative findings: native 3D generative methods generally achieve the highest quality and exhibit the greatest robustness to perturbations. Additionally, these detailed qualitative examples offer more fine-grained insights into how each perturbation affects 3D reconstruction quality for each method. Please visit our project webpage for video results.
provided in Figures 9 17 the end of the appendix. The observations
7.3 Failure Modes on Zeroverse
In Table g 9 and Figure g we show different failure modes of the three model paradigms on Zeroverse, where the shapes are not meaningful. Regression- surfaces, quantified by the difference between each normal and the average normal in its local neighborhood, normalized against the groundtruth. The multi-view models cannot generate consistent
model produces smooth back
21

---

(a) GSO
Cue
Variant
LGM
OpenLRM
CRM
SP3D
Instuntbeeh
Humyuun3D22
Trellis
Bawliin
Driginal
50.89
41.82
39.64
Tak Wish
(16.74)
(12.0
13.66 (-5.0))
(12)2112))14)
73 (11926)
(115.2)
(713,67)
Design
66.66(133665
63.25
(35.0)
74.09
(111.44
48.87
Geometric
Art
58.21
83.46 (1257)
77.49 (19.42)
$1.91 (120.36)
80.90
55.27 (113.45)
51.79 (112.15)
(Style)
0C1 Painting
89.66 (16-65)
(12.09)
73.19 (:5.13)
82.28 (120
60:77 (16.23)
58.01 (116.19)
56.49 (716-85)
Poinilliim
89.00 (95
83.26 (10.57)
73.35 (15.25)
54.14 (122.50)
62.44
56.26
54,08 (714.44)
Sculpture
85.200(12.69)
83.76 (3.76612.87)
69.99 (11.92)
74.54 (112.99)
58.27 (13.73)
(3.35(111.55)
48 18.99 (19:35)
Original (wio La
(13.9))
(1349)
73:08 (-5.011)
79.64 (164
58.02 (13:48)
47.22 (15:40)
68.51 (18.87)
Checkecboard (wio
06.1170112.100
90.71 (19.52)
85.71 (717.64)
06.29.76.62
62.55 (78.01)
47,00
(15 18)
29.33 (19.29)
Chezkehhand (w/ L.)
98.21 (1.2220)
68.1 (1 (.366
79.34
1.777
61.19.10 393
61 (16666
42.06 (10.44)
40.78 (1)
& Texture
Shading
Perfon Noise (win L.]
Havea (wil L)
Perlin Noise (wi' L)
06.86 (113.88)
93.76 (130.75)
21.86(18.85)
64386 (13097
K2. K2.72<1115 1.835
K3.65 (12.76)
82.96 (714.999
79.01 (710.94)
70:40 (-2.33)
98.15 (733.7)
72.97
61,82 (1004)
07.05 (712.55)
60:57 (75.08)
(1.6))
53.75
43.06 (11.245
46.70 (74.88)
(111.991
57.51 (717:87)
46006 (76.42)
39.91 (10.27)
Haven (w/ L)
56.01 (13.00)
90.94 (1005)
69.02 (10.95)
63.11 (11.53)
57.57 (13.03
43.62 (12.80)
40.97 (11.33)
Gasy (wia 1.)
109 (73.661366699
104.22
33)
96.26 (778.19) 19)
99.38 (137 8D)
70.3 (11600))
72,12
(19.300
72.04 (732.40)
(w/ L)
(19.15)
84.67 (13.8)
13:46 (3539)
(0:45
54.52 (10.02)
42.05 (10.23)
41.11 (11,47)
Dilated (Weak)
90.84 (17.83)
85.94
71:36 (33.29
72.34 (10.76)
60.35 (15.80)
43.67 (11.85)
42 12.58 (12.4)
Silhouette
Dilated (Medium)
95. (112.89)
(-9,40)
50.51
69-92 (115.38)
44.92
43 43
Dilated (Strong)
104.84 (121.83)
(114,56)
92.20 (13062)
78:31 (123:77)
49.92
42
Decluded
67.13.14412)
69.25
(10
(14.68)
43.51 <1
Occlusion
Decluded (Medium)
(1,07:1100.06
(12.9)
17.53 (6446
73.70 (112.12)
73.57 (119.03)
10.23:18.413
(717.4)
Occluded (Strong)
(121.09)
94,30 (11341)
90.01 (721.94)
56.95 (125.37)
N7.13 (132.59)
57.86 (116.04)
03.13 (123:49)
Edges
Edges Only
Sollen Filees
(19.06999.0))
(13.57))
K2 (11,7)
84 (10000
84.74 (716.67)
69.47 (71.40)
88.48 (126-00)
64.63 05)
67 (112.93)
(12.00)
42. 76 (10 (4.94)
51.56 (19
56.64 (17.000
42.87 (13:23)
Perpective
Oethographic
(15)1))
87. (1670
66 (.187)
69.83 25)
50:30:114.76)
47624116-47
4% (1365))
Pixel Stufile (2)
(12:4))
80 (10.88)
68:21 (70.14)
64.62 (4)
55:27 (10.731
11:12 70)
42,87 (13:23)
Local
Pixel Stulite (4)
$4.43 (11.42)
80.34 (10.55)
69.98 (11.91)
22.90 (113.32)
57.85 (13.31)
42.94
(1)11)
47.47 (17.33)
continiit
Pixel Stufile (10) Pixcl Stuffle (20)
91,25 (18.24)
84.42 (13.5)
80.53 (112.46)
99, 10 (135.52)
67.17 (?12,63)
51.54
(19.72)
61 (:2) .49
98.63 (115.62)
87.21 87.21 (16.52
94.53 (62044)
100.32 (145.74)
78
(124
72.68 (330866)
44 (7:49 (0))
(b) Toys4K
Cue
Variant
LGM
OpenIRM
CRM
SF3D
InstamMeeh
Hunyyun3DD2
Thellis
Hoscline
Ociginal
77:01
74.79
61.38
52.78
49.84
38.65
37.78
Esk: Wash
79:02 (12.01)
27.36 (12.57)
68 30 (16.42)
8305 (530.25)
(730.22
56.95
(718.30)
50.201 (712.42)
Flt Design
78.25 (11.24)
74.64 (10 (5)
66.66 (14.78)
69 30 (11.52)
55.
55.19
52.18 (113.53)
43 76 (15.98)
Grometric
Line
81.51 (14.50)
77.25 (12 46)
20.36 (18.58) 58)
74 96 (122 (8)
(137.4)
53.07 (114.4)
48.04 (710.76)
Cues (Style)
Painting
80.49 (13.48)
77.26 (12.47)
(17.10)
74.31 (121.55)
60.59 (110.55)
55.33 (116.48)
52.60 (114.82)
Poinillisa
78.65
76.72 (125.04)
60.01 (110.17)
54.67
(716.02)
51.05 (113.27)
Sculpture
77.90 (10.89)
75,55 (10.79)
(13.99)
69.96 (117.00
16.06
52.80
(114.17)
47.70
Original L)
77,95 (13:19) 19)
(19.92)
(115
54.44 (14.60)
(16.16)
46.95 (19
Checketooad (wio L.
59.95 (712.94)
82.18 (17 29)
78:55
(716-97)
T6.9a (124
58.00 (18.76)
(19.61
(112.11)
Checketboard L))
78 (11.57
77.30
(13
53.46 (1068))
52.03 (72.19)
39.06 (10.43)
29.19 (11.41
Shading
Noise (.)
86 (19.05)
78.61 (13
76.49 (11466))
71.67 (118300)
56 (76
4635
(T8 201
(18 (18.70)
& Texture
Haven (wil
Perlin Noie (wl L)
K3 (76.02)
14.14111.13
79.43 (74.63)
74,94 (10.15)
78:24 (716 36)
61.19 (10. 69)
90.11
52.43<00.351
(157.33)
49 19.16
(17.5)
48.10 179.45)
38.79 (10.1)
49:00 (112.00)
33.11 (10.6))
Haven (w/ 1.)
73.90 (10.899
24.67 (J0.12)
61.76 (10.12)
53.56 (1L78)
50.77 (70.93)
39009 (70.44)
57 51 (10.0))
Gray [win 1.1
96. 32 (719.31)
68 (11334)
83, 56
(121 (81
57.37
(1 59)
59.75-19.899 89)
58. (71944)
SR 62 (1 84)
Gray (w/ L)
61.35 (14.34)
76.82 (11.83)
62.96 (11.08)
53.55 (10.77)
47.54
38.28 (L0.37)
38, 56 (10.78)
Dilated (Weak)
$1.26 (14.25)
80.55 (15.69 699
67.82 (15.94) 94)
65.25(1) (11447)
54.41 (14.57)
41.94
38, 89 (11.1)
Sillonette
Dilated (Medica))
95.79 (718.78)
94 (130.01)
82 02. (2201.44)
75. 15 ( 37)
66.19
(116.25)
44.17 (15.52)
56 87 (11.0)
Dilated Strong)
111.42 (134.41
123,99 (149.20)
89.32 09.36666 (-27.48)
90.88 (138
75, (125.66)
50.30 (11165))
39 (12 10)
Occluded (Weak)
(13662
73,95 (10.81)
61.87 (12.99)
58, 48 (15.8)
57.06
41.74 (13.09)
45. 31 (17.58)
Occlusion
Occluded (Medium)
91.94 (714.98)
72 69 (110.S1)
(115.36)
08,88 (118.24)
48.09 (19.44)
52.54 (114.76)
Occluded (Strong)
100.4
90,62
M2.41 ("20.53)
(131.9)
80.83 (120.999
52.84
(121.75)
Edges
Only
Fdlgss
90.98 (13.97)
85
(10.46)
75 83 (313055)
(11.49)
78.51 (125
10.114400
(1.68
49.70110014)
44 (16.09)
16.77 (10.12)
50 (112.53)
Perspcctive
Orthograghic
78.91 (11.90)
79.56 (14.77)
(L7)57)
(1805)
(12.22)
(1..4
39:84 (12.06
Pixel Stuttti
76:69 (110.22)
(J0:34)
61.44 (11:44))
54.67
(10.44)
37.59 LL1
(12.26)
Local continuity
Pixel Shuffle
77 77:77 (10 761
73.28 (1) 51)
61 60
(LO
63.64 (110.66 86)
$2.86
96 (10.69)
(14:21)
Pixal Shufflc (10)
84 (17.85)
74, 58 (10.21)
20
86.01 (133
61 (111.20)
90 (16. 25)
69 (113.01)
Pixel Shuffle (20)
87.33 (710.32)
19.15 (14.36)
84 66 ('22.78)
96.24 (143.46)
(179961
57.11 (118.46)
67.18 (129 4B)
Table 5: Quantitative analysis of image cue perturbations on single-
3D generation. We report
Chamfer Distance (CD x 1000 for clarity; lower is better) for each model under different perturbations. A larger increase in CD indicates greater performance degradation, revealing the model's 's reliance on the perturbed cue.
views, shown by the dropping DINOv2 similarity across views. Native 3D generative models hallucinate non-existent symmetries, shown by large number of false positives on Zeroverse.
7.4 Variance of Different Seeds in Viewpoint Sampling
We observe minor performance differences when evaluating the models using the same input im- age using different random seeds. However, when we vary the random seeds to sample different viewpoints of the same object, thus generating different rendered input images, some performance variation emerges, reported in Table 10 Importantly, these variations do not affect the core findings or conclusions of our study. A more comprehensive investigation into viewpoint sensitivity remains an interesting direction for future work.
22

---

(a) GSO
Cue
Variant
LGM
OpeaLRRM
InsuatMesh
Hunyun3D
Trellis
Baseline
Ociginal
83,01
68.07
61.58
Manbartan Dilated (Weak)
80 (16.79)
$2.69 30)
69.97 (?1,90)
73.01
(111.43)
57.58 (13.04)
60.94 (10.8))
41,91
Schooette
Maniuman Diluted (Mid)
103.590 (120.96)
79.50 19150:
89.5% (123.
70:07 (115.53)
42.70 (10.88)
(1..5
Manhamaan Diluted
(128774)
107.31
84.2% (116.2))
(135.43)
$2.75 (128.21)
45.28
(2.70.(19.69)
82.36
64.74 (166777)
(126.90)
67.47 (112.93)
(19.74)
56.64
Edges
Linean Edges
HED Edges
90.23 (17.22)
(112.62)
85.61 (14.72)
84.31 (13:42)
79.39 (111.32)
(115.20)
79.53 (117.95)
(13.60)
66.11 (711.57)
70.25 (715.21)
50.37 (18.55)
(17.05)
53. 31.30 (111.66)
(115.89)
PIDI Edyes
94.25 (111.24)
$4.45 (13.56)
841130))6.00
(141.00)
78.17 (71868)
(17.44)
69.06 (129,43)
(b) Toys4K
Cue
Variant
LGM
OyeaLRRM
CRM
SF3D
InstunMesh
Humywn3D-2
Baseline
Original
74.79
38.65
Mantaitan Dilared (Wesk)
77:97 (13
64.46111160
53,66
59.1
S.Booette
Manhattan Dilared (MiJ)
(127.76)
76.56
(3.10
38.61 (JOU44)
58.40 (70.62)
Manhatton (Strong)
117,13.(44012)
108. (08.18
90.44 (128
91,02
(1.2.53)
(13.44)
(10.5
Tdges
75.63
(11.391
(125.775773)
(112.84)
64.76 (1600)
50.31 (112.5)
Edges
HED Edges
Fdges
.99
75.42 (10.6)
(11.92)
46.61 831
(1.3.1))
PIDI Edges
(112.80)
76.35 (11.56)
76.10 (114.2)
93.51 (140.22)
(11.883)
43.57 (14.92)
(16692)
Table 6: Additional Quantitative analysis of image cue perturbations on single-image 3D generation. We report Chamfer Distance (CD x x1000; lower is better) for each model under different perturbations. A larger increase in CD indicates greater performance degradation, revealing the model's 's reliance on the perturbed cue.
Lighting & Material Variants
OpenLRM
CRM
SF3D
InstaniMesh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trellis
Kay map, default specularity (orig.)
80.89
68.07
61,58
54.54
41.82
39.64
Eny map. large specularity
81.70 (488)
68.40 38.40 (-0.3))
61.84 (40.25)
54.43 (-0.11)
42.32 (40.50)
38.94 (-0.70)
Directional, default specularity Directional, large specularity
84.19 (13.00
72.00 (13.2)
67.26 (15.8)
60.60
(16.00
42.77 (:095)
43,97 (4433)
84.47 (+3.8)
70.68 (+2.0))
65.99 (-1.1))
57.94 (e3.40)
42,76 (-089)
42.54 (42000)
Table 7: GSO ablation on lighting and specularity (CDx lower is better). Values parentheses
baseline. Directional lighting generally hurts, while increased specularity can mitigate or improve performance depending on model and lighting.
are deltas vs. the catpoommenntmma//faaattt--ss-eee
8
Implementation Details
8.1 Evaluation
We first leverage ambient occlusion to remove the internal surface of the output meshes. For each predicted mesh, we load and recenter both the prediction and its corresponding ground-truth mesh normalizing each to a unit bounding sphere. Following [6], we uniformly search a dense grid of rotations (24 azimuth x 24 elevation x 12 roll samples), applies each the predicted cloud, and perform a brute-force search over these rotations to identify the best coarse alignment. Finally, we refine this aligmment with Iterative Closest Point (ICP). After the alignment, we compute Chamfer Distance (CD) and F-score at CD thresholds to evaluate the predicted meshes.
8.2 Perturbations
Our input images are 512 x 512 pixels in resolution. For silhouctte dilation, we apply a dilation kemne of 10 pixels for the weak variant, 30 pixels for the medium variant, and 60 pixels for the strong variant. For occlusion, we randomly position an occluder mask along the edge of the object and scale it by a factor of 0.1, 0.4, 0.8 for the weak, medium, and strong variants, respectively. For pixel shuffle, we randomly shuffle all pixels within each non-overlapping N x N grid inside the object mask, with N set to 2, 10, or 20 represent different perturbation strength.
8.3 Teaser Figure
In Figure 1 of the main paper, we provide an overview of our key findings, including performance comparisons and robustness to perturbations, on the Toys4K dataset. Here, we present analogous figures for the GSO dataset, where the results closely mirror those observed on Toys4K.
The radar plot on the right illustrates robustness to different image cues. Each axis shows the increase in Chamfer Distance (CD) of using perturbed image relative to using the original image, with values normalized from 0 to according to the largest drop across all models and cues. For the texture axis, we report the average performance drop over all texture- perturbations with
23

---

20 Overall PSNR
3D Visible FS
Texture
Shape Meaningitlnees
2D Overall SSIM
Shading
Style
LPIPS
20 Overall
Silhouette
Local
20 Visible SSIM
3D Overall
CD
20 Visible PSNR
Occlusion
Perspective
Overall FS
Symmetry FS
Edges
LGM
LPM
CRM
SF3D
InstantMesh
Trells
Hunyuan3D-2
Figure 7: Teaser figure result on the GSO dataset. We observe the same trend as in Toys4K. Left: Our unified evaluation of single-image 3D generation methods. Right: Performance robustness the perturbation each cue, lower values indicate higher importance.
Method
GSO
Toys4K
Zeroverse
HP
G50
Teys4K
Zeroverse
OpenI.RM SF3D
1.5819
1.3361
0.7892
1.0198
0.9155
0.3997
0.5
Table Failure mode of regression paaressioo-bbsedd mod- els meaningless shapes: back view becomes smooth, measured by a normal roughness index, lower means smoother.
600
Method
GSO
Toys4K
Zeroverse
CRM
0.5214
0.5583
0.4786
InstantMesh
0.6628
0.7462
0.5348
Hunyuan022
Tralls
Hunyuan302
Tall
HunyyinaD-22
Traill
Figure 8: Failure mode of native 3D generative models on meaningless shapes: hallucination of symmetry, shown by the increase of false posi- tives on Zeroverse.
Table 9: Failure mode of multi-view models on meaningless shapes: view inconsistency, mea- sured by DINOv2 similarity.
shading intact; for shading, average over all shading-related perturbations without lighting. For silhouette and occlusion, we use the strong perturbation variant. For edges, we use the softened edges perturbation; for local continuity, and for shape meaningfulness, we report the drop compared to Zeroverse performance, We display only the pest-performing methods because, for weaker models, the original CD scores are poor, our ICP alignment can lead to CD scores saturating, making CD score drop no longer able to faithfully represent performance degradation, or no longer comparable with other better-performing models.
the strength of 10; for style, average across all styles;
Broader Impact
On the positive side, Cue3D addresses fundamental gap in the interpretability and robustness of single-image 3D generation models. By systematically dissecting which visual cues, such as shading, texture, silhouette, and perspective, that are actually used by state-of-the-an 3D generative networks, systems.
this work lays the foundation for developing more transparent, robust, and controllable Such advances have broad societal benefits. For example, in content creation and digital entertainment, better understanding of 3D model generation can drive higher quality, more reliable virtual assets for animation, games, AR/VR, and industrial design. In scientific and educational settings, robust
24

---

Method
SF3D
InstamiMesh
Trellis
Seed
61.58
54.54
39.64
Seed
58.00
56.45
39.70
Seed
58.20
53.88
40.52
Average
59.26
54.96
39.95
Standard Deviation
1.64
1.09
0.40
Table 10: Performance variation when using different seeds to sample inference images viewpoint, measured by Chamfer Distance (CD x x1000; lower is better).
3D inference from images can facilitate improved visualization and analysis of objects and scenes, democratizing access powerful graphics tools. More broadly, the push for interpretability aligns with growing public and regulatory demand for transparency and trustworthiness AI, reducing the risk of unpredictable failures and biases in downstream applications. The open, extensible benchmarking methodology promoted by Cue3D could become a community standard, encouraging more responsible, reproducible, and diagnosable progress in Al-generated 3D content.
However, there are also potential negative societal impacts. As single-image 3D generation methods become more powerful and transparent, the same advances that benefit creative and scientific commu- nities could leveraged for malicious purposes. Improved 3D reconstruction from ordinary images can facilitate unauthorized cloning of real-world objects, cultural artifacts, even biometric data (such as faces or bodies), raising concerns about privacy, copyright infringement, and the propagation of deepfakes. The increased robustness of these models to stylization occlusion, discussed in the paper, could make easier to reconstruct 3D models even from intentionally obfuscated or partially hidden images, weakening existing privacy protections. Moreover, because the findings highlight the over-reliance on certain cues (e.g., silhouette), there is risk that future systems, not carefully designed, could propagate existing biases vulnerabilities into real- weal-world deployments, for example, failing more frequently on out-of-distribution or less-represented shapes, which may disproportionnttly impact marginalized communities less commonly encountered objects. The computational demands of benchmarking and training these systems also carry environmental costs, which, while not unique this work, are worth considering given the scale of modern AI experiments.
In summary, while Cue3D represents an important step toward more interpretable, robust, and community-driven single-image 3D generation, care must be taken to address privacy, bias, and misuse risks, ensuring that these technological advances are ultimately used for societal benefit rather than harm.
25

---

Input
LGM
OpenLRMM
CRM
SF3D
InstantMesh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trelis
Original
Image
Ink Wash Style
Design Style
Line Art Style
Figure 9: Quantitative results of all perturbations, page 9
26

---

Input
LGM
OpenLRMM
CRM
SF3D
InstantMesh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trelis
Oil Painting
Styfe
Pointilism Style
Style
Original Image (wi L)
Figure 10: Quantitative results of all perturbations, page 2/ 9.
27

---

Input
LGM
OpenLRRM
CRM
SF3D
InstantMesh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trelis
Checkerboard
Checkerboard Texture (wr L)
Perlin Noise Texture (w/b
Perlin Noise Texture L.)
Figure 11: Quantitative results of all perturbations, page / 9.
28

---

Input
LGM
OpenLRMM
CRM
SF3D
InstantMeshh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trelis
Haven
Texture (w/ L)
Gray Texture (w/b
Gray Texture L)
Figure 12: Quantitative results of all perturbations, page 4 9.
29

---

Input
LGM
OpenLRRM
CRM
SF3D
InstandMesh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trelis
Dliatd
Siloouette
(Weak)
Diated Silhouette (Medium)
Silhouette (Strong)
Manhattan Dilsted
Sihouette (Week)
Figure 13: Quantitative results of all perturbations, page 5 9.
30

---

Input
LGM
OpenLRRM
CRM
SF3D
InstantMesh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trelis
Manhattan Diisted
Silhoustte (Modium)
Manhation Disstd Silhouette (Strong)
(Weak)
Ordudded (Medium)
Figure 14: Quantitative results of all perturbations, page 6/ 9.
31

---

Input
LGM
OpenLRRM
CRM
SF3D
InstantMesh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trelis
Ocduced
(Strong)
Canny Edgos
Edges
Lineart Edgos
Figure 15: Quantitative results of all perturbations, page 7/9.
32

---

Input
LGM
OpenLRRM
CRM
SF3D
InstandMesh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trelis
PIDI Edges
Soften Edges
Orthographic
Pixol Shuffic (2)
Figure 16: Quantitative results of all perturbations, page 9.
33

---

Input
OpenLRM
CRM
SF3D
InstantMesh
Hunyuan3D-2
Trelis
Shuffle (4)
Pixe Shuffle
Pixel
Figure 17: Quantitative results of all perturbations, page 9 9.
34


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "eRqots38zh", "reviewer": "Reviewer_wyxx", "summary": "The paper seeks to gain insights into how recent image-to-3D object reconstruction methods reason about their inputs to generate their output. Thus, it seeks to impose greater interpretability on these methods, which all learn complex latent representations and often function as black-boxes. It does this by evaluating the influence of different cues on the quality of 3D reconstruction as measured by several well-established metrics. The authors conclude that meaningful shapes, shading, occlusion and silhouettes are among the most important cues used by these methods.", "questions": "1. (Evaluation) The results in Table 3 and 5 seem to be fundamental in supporting the main claims of the paper. However, the presentation format of these results makes them very unreadable, and difficult to derive any insights from. I would suggest using more illustrative graphical examples to present these results. If space is an issue, I would suggest focusing less on the performance comparison of each method (Sec. 4.1) since that doesn't seem to be primary to the objective of the paper. \n\nAction: The authors should provide a description -- preferably a list -- of the different visualizations they plan to use to better illustrate the data in Table 3 and 5. A good example of a paper that does this well is \"VBench: Comprehensive Benchmark Suite for Video Generative Models.\" \n\n2. (Evaluation) In an evaluation-based work like this, it can be useful to provide some statistical tests to show that the drop in metrics are actually significant.\n\n3. (Evaluation) How is the performance robustness of each cue determined in Fig.1 (right)?\n\n4. (Methodology) The authors' claim that shape meaningfullness is the most important factor in determining model performance seems to be based on a flawed criterion: it evaluates models on a shape dataset that is outside its training distribution. But any learned model will fail when the testing and training distributions don't match. How do the authors' determine that the drop in performance in this case is because the shapes aren't meaningful (with the term \"meaningful\" being defined by the training data of the model)? A better strategy to evaluate this cue may be to use something similar to a cut-mix augmentation on shapes from the datasets that the models have been trained on, rather than using the entirely out-of-distribution Zeroverse dataset for evaluation. \n\nAction: The authors should clarify how they disentangle the effects of model-inherent shape \"meaningfulness\" from a simple failure to generalize to out-of-distribution samples (which any model with limited capacity will suffer from). I will be entirely convinced if the authors can show that the cut-mix augmentation causes a similar degradation of performance on the shape-meaningfulness cue.\n\n5. (Methodology) How do the authors ensure that each individual cue is entirely isolated? For instance, the stylization and texturing cues can interfere with one another, as can the edge cue. \n\nAction: A response from the authors about how they ensure the impact of cues is isolated would help clarify this point. Ideally, it would be wonderful to have more detailed statistical analysis in the paper that can directly yield insights into such questions. For instance, running PCA on the (6x9x3x3x2x1x4) dimensional tensor that represents ALL combinations of cues in Table 3 (Geometric x shading x silhouette x occlusion x ... ). But I understand this may require too much work and I would be satisfied with a convincing textual argument. \n\n6. (Methodology) The dilation effect used for the silhouette cue does not seem to be the correct approach as it confounds the internal texture, while keeping the silhouette mostly intact. \n\nAction: A justification for using this cue would be helpful. Personally, I feel a better way to perturb the silhouette would be to use the mask from one object to mask out a different object. In this case, the texture, shading, edges all remain intact and only the boundary is modified.\n\n---------\n\nI will upgrade my rating to Accept if the authors provide convincing responses to all the above questions.\nI will upgrade my rating to Borderline Accept if the authors provide convincing responses to questions 1, 4 and 5.", "limitations": "Yes.", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 2, "clarity": 2, "significance": 2, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "Strengths:\n1. The goal of the paper to better interpret how state-of-the-art image-to-3D methods reason about their inputs is very well motivated, and has the potential to strongly influence future research in this field.\n2. The tripartite classification of recent work into regression-based, multi-view and native 3D is very helpful in placing the large number of recent papers into proper context.\n3. The paper is clearly written and easy to follow.\n\nWeaknesses:\n1. The evaluation section of the paper seems weak (See below for details). Since the novel contribution of the paper is derived from its evaluation of different perturbations, I feel this is a major shortcoming.\n2. The methodological design does not account for confounding factors in evaluating each independent variable (perturbation category).", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "The authors adequately addressed all my questions with additional experiments and detailed explanations. I had stated in my original review that I would increase my score if the points I raised were addressed, and they were.", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your comprehensive and detailed review! We appreciate your suggestions greatly.\n\nPrimary questions (1,4, and 5):\n\nQ1: Plans for adding different visualizations to better illustrate the data in Table 3 and 5.\n\nA1: \nWe appreciate your point that Tables 3 and 5 (cue-ablation results) can be difficult to quickly interpret. In our current version, the tables present raw results to faithfully represent all our experiments. However, we completely agree with your suggestion and will include the following visualizations inspired by VBench in the final version:\n1. Radar plots for each family of methods and individual methods. These radar plots illustrate sensitivity to different cues and contextualizes performance across regression, multi-view, and native 3D models.\n2. A color-coded Cue x Model heatmap that summarizes per‑cue degradation across methods and datasets.\n3. For cues with variable strength (e.g., mask dilation, occlusion), bar plots showing performance drops at different perturbation strengths.\nWe believe these visualizations will clearly highlight key insights and would be very happy to hear any additional suggestions from you to further improve the clarity of our presentation.\n\nQ4: Importance of shape meaningfulness vs. generic OOD failure; Shape CutMix experiments.\n\nA4: We first clarify our claims on shape meaningfulness, and then present the results of the shape CutMix experiments suggested by the reviewer, which support our conclusion derived from Zeroverse that shape meaningfulness is indeed crucial.\n\nThe reviewer suggests that the failure of the models on shape meaningfulness perturbation (Zeroverse) could be a generic OOD failure. However, our goal is precisely to identify along which dimension models fail to generalize OOD. Our specific claim in the paper is that meaningful shape is critical for single-image-to-3D generalization, whereas texture meaningfulness is not. We contrast the OOD effects of shape versus texture explicitly, showing that changing to meaningless textures(while keeping other cues unchanged) had minimal impact.\n\nFollowing your recommendation, we conducted several shape CutMix experiments of varying difficulty:\n1. Half-and-half: We mix half of mesh M with the other half of mesh N to construct a new mesh from GSO meshes. This limits the distribution shift and preserves many local and global shape cues (e.g., surface smoothness, local symmetry), and also preserves a significant amount of shape meaningfulness to human perception. We show 3 variants: front-back, left-right, and top-bottom.\n2. Standard cube-based CutMix. We follow the CutMix paper and randomly sample an axis-aligned 3D cube within the bounding cube of the object. We replace the part of mesh M that falls into the cube with the part from mesh N that falls into the same cube. When sampling the cube, we pin one of its corners at the corner of the object bounding cube to avoid significant discontinuity in the output shape. The length ratio(length_{sampled cube}/length_{bounding cube}) is uniformly sampled from [0.4, 0.6]. Most parts of the object M are outside the chosen cube and remain intact. Meanwhile, the local shape cues are mostly preserved.\n\n3. OctantMix. We center each mesh and split it into 8 octants by the coordinate planes (xy, yz, and xz planes). Then we replace the part in each octant by the corresponding part from other random meshes from the same dataset. This variant still preserves the local shape cues, and it has a significantly smaller distribution gap than zeroverse compared to our original evaluation data (GSO).\n\nWe show the result on the GSO dataset, compared to Zeroverse numbers for reference. We use the CDx1000 metric following Table 3, lower is better.\n\n||OpenLRM|CRM|SF3D|InstantMesh|Hunyuan3D-2|Trellis|\n|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|\n|Original|80.89|68.07|61.58|54.54|41.82|39.64|\n|Top-Bottom|93.08(+12.19)|84.05(+15.98)|78.05(+16.47)|80.16(+25.62)|57.94(+16.12)|67.32(+27.68)|\n|Front-Back|88.96(+8.07)|80.79(+12.72)|70.89(+9.31)|69.26(+14.72)|51.74(+9.92)|58.95(+19.31)|\n|Left-Right|90.97(+10.08)|84.44(+16.37)|75.17(+13.59)|80.92(+26.38)|60.56(+18.74)|72.23(+32.59)|\n|CutMix|89.33(+8.44)|78.31(+10.24)|69.77(+8.19)|73.93(+19.39)|59.43(+17.61)|65.36(+25.72)|\n|OctantMix|97.35(+16.46)|89.96(+21.89)|92.43(+30.85)|89.49(+34.95)|75.05(+33.23)|79.94(+40.30)|\n|Zeroverse|96.59(+15.70)|81.45(+13.38)|90.34(+28.76)|89.47(+34.93)|78.09(+36.27)|78.14(+38.50)|\n\nThe results show that all variants significantly harm performance. Notably, OctantMix causes a performance drop similar to zeroverse despite a smaller domain gap. Standard CutMix, which modifies only about 1/8 of the mesh volume, still results in large drops (e.g., 20 points for Hunyuan3D-2). Even minimal half-and-half perturbations, where shape meaningfulness is mostly preserved, typically cause performance drops of over 10 points, which is greater than for most other cues. This shows that shape meaningfulness is crucial, since models struggle to generalize even with partial perturbations of this cue, especially compared to other cues like texture meaningfulness.\n\nQ5: How to ensure that each individual cue is entirely isolated? Analysis on the correlation of cues.\n\nA5: Great question! \nWe would like to clarify the principles behind our cue selection and provide additional quantitative analysis on correlations between the effects of different cues.\n\nWe chose these cues primarily based on their perceptual importance and interpretability to humans, rather than strict orthogonality. As noted in Section 2 (Lines 104-111), our selected cues originate from psychological studies of human visual perception and have strong foundations in prior vision research, as they represent factors that humans typically find meaningful. While some cues naturally remain disentangled (such as shading versus texture), others inherently overlap to some extent (like style and texture, as you correctly pointed out).\n\nWe appreciate your suggestion to quantitatively analyze cue correlations. However, some perturbations, such as style and texture, are difficult to combine meaningfully, making full combinational analyses like PCA impractical. Instead, we assess whether cues impact objects similarly by calculating per-object performance drops in CD for each cue and then computing the Spearman rank correlation between pairs of cues. This produces a correlation matrix showing how similarly each pair of cues affects the same set of objects. Note that this analysis only correlates with cue correlation but does not directly indicate cue correlation. \n\n||Texture|Shading|Silhouette|Occlusion|Edges|Local continuity|Style|\n|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|\n|**Texture**|**1.00**|0.66|0.31|0.29|0.36|0.39|0.50|\n|**Shading**|0.66|**1.00**|0.34|0.35|0.35|0.51|0.60|\n|**Silhouette**|0.31|0.34|**1.00**|0.27|0.24|0.28|0.34|\n|**Occlusion**|0.29|0.35|0.27|**1.00**|0.19|0.30|0.31|\n|**Edges**|0.36|0.35|0.24|0.19|**1.00**|0.27|0.31|\n|**Local continuity**|0.39|0.51|0.28|0.30|0.27|**1.00**|0.47|\n|**Style**|0.50|0.60|0.34|0.31|0.31|0.47|**1.00**|\n\n\nThe result suggests that overall the correlation is low. Interestingly, texture and shading cues seem to affect a set of objects in similar ways, though they are inherently disentangled.\n\nOther questions (2, 3, 6):\n\nQ2: Provide some statistical tests to show that the drop in metrics are actually significant.\n\nA2: Following your valuable suggestion, in the final version, we will include statistical tests (specifically, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests) to clearly demonstrate that the observed drops in performance metrics are statistically significant.\n\nQ3: How is the performance robustness of each cue determined in Fig.1 (right)?\n\nA3: The radar plot in Figure 1 illustrates normalized increases in Chamfer Distance (CD) when using perturbed images relative to original images. Specifically, each axis is normalized from 0 to 1 based on the largest observed drop across all models and cues. Detailed descriptions for how we compute each axis are provided in Appendix Section 2.3.\n\nQ6: The dilation effect for the silhouette cue confounds internal texture; instead, use the mask from one object to mask out a different object.\n\nA6: Thank you for highlighting this! We agree this is a valid concern, as dilated regions were filled with solid black. We will explain our design decision and provide results following your recommended approach.\nIn our dilation perturbation, no image cue is removed, only black space is added. If the model ignored silhouette cues, it would rely on other cues and reproduce the original shape, which did not occur, suggesting the model depends on silhouette information.\n\nFollowing your suggestion, for each mesh M, we randomly sample another mesh N and combine the image content of M with the silhouette of N (scaling M to avoid blank space). We then evaluate each model’s output against both the ground truth by image content (M) and by silhouette (N). Results are provided below.\n\n||OpenLRM|CRM|SF3D|InstantMesh|Hunyuan3D-2|Trellis|\n|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|\n|Original|80.89|68.07|61.58|54.54|41.82|39.64|\n|ContentGT(M)|196.88(+115.99)|154.52(+86.45)|143.08(+81.50)|194.25(+139.71)|167.95(+126.13)|119.27(+79.63)|\n|SilhouetteGT(N)|96.31(+15.42)|98.42(+30.35)|103.55(+41.97)|85.74(+31.20)|100.96(+59.14)|102.00(+62.36)|\n\n\nResults indicate that performance significantly decreases with both ground truths. However, performance against the silhouette ground truth (N) is substantially better, clearly indicating that all models indeed rely heavily on silhouette cues to infer shape. These findings align well with our original conclusions, and we will include these results in the final version of our paper.\n\nThank you again for your thoughtful and constructive suggestions! We also welcome your further suggestions or questions!"}, {"review_id": "KFbeTYmKT4", "reviewer": "Reviewer_MKBa", "summary": "This paper presents Cue3D, a way to analyse (quantitavely) how much single-image\nto 3D methods rely on different kinds of information in the input image, and applies\nit to various existing single-image to 3D methods. The focus is on both geometry and\nappearance, and on the object-centric task (i.e. not single-image to 3D scene, although\nmuch of the methodology could carry over).", "questions": "If I understand correctly, \"Shape Meaningfullness\" is unlike the other cues in that\ninstead of modifying the input to alter it in some way, here the input is simply replaced\nby one consisting of randomly combined shapes. Since difficulty of reconstruction naturally\nvarious across examples (and presumably depends also on complexity as well as the other\ncues discussed here), how do we ensure that this is a fair comparison – i.e. that the\nnon-meaningful shapes are in some sense of \"similar\" difficulty to the ones\nthey are replacing, and are textured and shaded in a similar way? Without this, I don't\nsee how to make a meaningful comparison between geometry quality on Zeroverse and the\nother datasets.\n\nCan we be confident that the methods being analysed have not seen Toys4K or GSO data\n(or indeed Zeroverse) during training?", "limitations": "There is a limitations section in the Appendix. I would suggest moving it to the main\npaper and making it more detailed. It talks about considering a wider range of models\nand datasets, but there are also limitations in the choice of cues and how they are\nimplemented for evaluation.", "rating": 5, "confidence": 3, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 2, "clarity": 3, "significance": 2, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "[Strength] The authors identify a reasonable set of different image properties (shading,\ntexture, etc) to investigate, and apply sensible metrics to quantify both geometry\n(via chamfer distance, and with a sensible distinction between seen and unseen geometry)\nand appearance (LPIPS, PSNR etc).\n\n[Strength] The paper is clearly written and it's easy to understand the methodology.\nThe supplementary material gives plenty of examples to illustrate the kinds of input\nvariation considered, and the results obtained.\n\n[Both] The general conclusions (nicely summarized in line 48–75) don't seem\nparticularly surprising. On the other hand, the data here can highlight some\ndifferences between approachs which I think is valuable.\n\n[Weakness] In some cases it's not clear (to me, at least) that the input variations\nare meaningful. Applying style-transfer to the input certainly does _something_ but\ngoing by the examples in the appendix, \"Pointillism style\", \"Oil Painting Style\"\nand \"Line Art Style\" don't look at all like the styles they are supposed to me. In\nother cases, it's easy to think of further transforms that would be interesting.\nFor example, having discovered the important of \"shading\", one could generate\ninputs using various different types of lighting and changing material properties\nsuch as specularity and roughness, to try to understand specifically _what_ aspects\nof shading are crucial. E.g. directional lighting without specularity, directional\nlighting with specularity, multiple light sources, environment map, self-shadowing,\netc. Another natural question is: how does the 3D quality vary with the viewing\nangle of the input image (side view vs top-down view).\n\n[Strength] The authors promise to release the code on acceptance, and use only public\ndatasets. This should make it possible to others to use Cue3 to evaluate new methods,\nand to extend it.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "My questions were answered very satisfactorily. After reading the other reviews and discussion, including around the new CutMix experiments, I upgrade my rating to Accept.", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your insightful comments!\n\nQ1: Whether style variations are meaningful.\n\nA1: We appreciate your thoughtful observation! We used a state-of-the-art style transfer model, but we acknowledge it is not perfect. While it successfully applies the desired style in many cases, there are scenarios where it does not fully capture the reference style. However, our goal for using style transfer is to perturb geometric cues while preserving semantic content (L175). Even when the style transfer is not perfect, it still generally achieves our goal of introducing meaningful perturbations.\n\nQ2: More cues and transforms; Effect of varying viewing angle.\n\n\nA2: Thanks you for the suggestions! Given the limited time and resources during the rebuttal period, we prioritized performing a more in-depth experiment exploring the interaction between shading and material properties (e.g., specularity). Specifically, we conducted this additional experiment on the GSO dataset and report results in CDx1000 following Table 3 (lower is better). We investigated combinations of environment map lighting vs. directional lighting, and default vs. large specularity.\n\n||OpenLRM|CRM|SF3D|InstantMesh|Hunyuan3D-2|Trellis|\n|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|\n|env map w/o large specularity(original)|80.89|68.07|61.58|54.54|41.82|39.64|\n|env map w/ large specularity|81.70(+0.81)|68.40(+0.33)|61.84(+0.26)|54.43(-0.11)|42.32(+0.50)|38.94(-0.70)|\n|directional w/o large specularity|84.19(+3.30)|72.00(+3.93)|67.26(+5.68)|60.60(+6.06)|42.77(+0.95)|43.97(+4.33)|\n|directional w/ large specularity|84.47(+3.58)|70.68(+2.61)|65.99(+4.41)|57.94(+3.40)|42.76(+0.94)|42.54(+2.90)|\n\nThis experiment yields interesting observations! Surprisingly, directional lighting significantly degraded performance for most models, except Hunyuan3D-2. Additionally, large specularity slightly improved performance in several cases, although not always, with the exception of OpenLRM and Hunyuan3D-2. We speculate that this might be related to difference lighting setup used in each model’s training. Meanwhile, investigating the effect of varying viewing angles would be valuable, and we believe this is a promising direction for future research.\n\nQ3: Zeroverse comparison may be unfair due to difficulty.\n\nA3: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We additionally conducted several shape CutMix experiments, which mixes different assets from the GSO dataset to create new meshes, with the objective of partially removing shape meaningfulness while maintaining a similar difficulty. We introduce several different settings for our CutMix experiments:\n1. Half-and-half: We mix half of mesh M with the other half of mesh N to construct a new mesh from GSO meshes. This limits the distribution shift and preserves many local and global shape cues (e.g., surface smoothness, local symmetry), and also preserves a significant amount of shape meaningfulness to human perception. We show 3 variants: front-back, left-right, and top-bottom.\n2. Standard cube-based CutMix. We follow the CutMix paper and randomly sample an axis-aligned 3D cube within the bounding cube of the object. We replace the part of mesh M that falls into the cube with the part from mesh N that falls into the same cube. When sampling the cube, we pin one of its corners at the corner of the object bounding cube to avoid significant discontinuity in the output shape. The length ratio(length_{sampled cube}/length_{bounding cube}) is uniformly sampled from [0.4, 0.6]. Most parts of the object M are outside the chosen cube and remain intact. Meanwhile, the local shape cues are mostly preserved.\n\n3. OctantMix. We center each mesh and split it into 8 octants by the coordinate planes (xy, yz, and xz planes). Then we replace the part in each octant by the corresponding part from other random meshes from the same dataset. This variant still preserves the local shape cues, and it has a significantly smaller distribution gap than zeroverse compared to our original evaluation data (GSO).\n\nWe show the result on the GSO dataset, compared to Zeroverse numbers for reference. We use the CDx1000 metric following Table 3, lower is better.\n\n||OpenLRM|CRM|SF3D|InstantMesh|Hunyuan3D-2|Trellis|\n|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|\n|Original|80.89|68.07|61.58|54.54|41.82|39.64|\n|Top-Bottom|93.08(+12.19)|84.05(+15.98)|78.05(+16.47)|80.16(+25.62)|57.94(+16.12)|67.32(+27.68)|\n|Front-Back|88.96(+8.07)|80.79(+12.72)|70.89(+9.31)|69.26(+14.72)|51.74(+9.92)|58.95(+19.31)|\n|Left-Right|90.97(+10.08)|84.44(+16.37)|75.17(+13.59)|80.92(+26.38)|60.56(+18.74)|72.23(+32.59)|\n|CutMix|89.33(+8.44)|78.31(+10.24)|69.77(+8.19)|73.93(+19.39)|59.43(+17.61)|65.36(+25.72)|\n|OctantMix|97.35(+16.46)|89.96(+21.89)|92.43(+30.85)|89.49(+34.95)|75.05(+33.23)|79.94(+40.30)|\n|Zeroverse|96.59(+15.70)|81.45(+13.38)|90.34(+28.76)|89.47(+34.93)|78.09(+36.27)|78.14(+38.50)|\n\nThe results show that all variants still significantly harms performance. In particular, despite a significantly smaller domain gap and a more similar difficulty to GSO, OctantMix leads to a similar performance drop as zeroverse, indicating catastrophic failure. Standard CutMix only alters approximately 1/8 of the mesh volume, but it also causes a very significant drop(e.g., 20 points for Hunyuan3D-2). Even for the minimal half-and-half perturbations, where shape meaningfulness still largely remains, we still observe significant performance drop of >10 points most of the time. This performance drop is still very significant compared to the effect of other cues. These results highlight the importance of shape meaningfulness, since the models have significant difficulty to generalize even when we only partially perturb this cue, especially compared to other cues like texture meaningfulness.\n\nQ4: Can we be confident that test sets are not seen in training.\n\nA4: This is a valid and important question. We are quite confident that none of the methods have seen the GSO or Zeroverse datasets during training, as GSO is widely reserved as a test-only benchmark, and Zeroverse is also not typically used for training single-image-to-3D models. We are fairly confident that Toys4K is not seen by all the models(Page 6 of the trellis paper: “For quantitative evaluations, we use Toys4k, which is not part of our training set or those of the compared methods.”), except that we are not absolutely certain about Hunyuan3D-2, since they do not release or list their training data. Since Hunyuan3D-2 does not behave significantly differently from trellis on Toys4K, it is likely that they also did not use Toys4K in training.\n\nQ5: Limitation section and formatting.\n\nA5: Thank you for the suggestion! We will move the limitation section to the main paper and make it more comprehensive in the final version. We will also fix the reference formatting issues.\n\nThank you once again for your insightful and helpful feedback. Please feel free to share any additional suggestions or questions you may have!"}, {"review_id": "rzu324yCHn", "reviewer": "Reviewer_bRRe", "summary": "The paper introduces Cue3D, a novel framework designed to evaluate the influence of individual image cues on single-image 3D generation. Its core idea is to systematically analyze how different image cues, such as shading, texture, and silhouette, affect the performance of various single-image 3D generation methods. The main contributions of the paper include the creation of a unified benchmark for evaluating seven state-of-the-art methods across different paradigms, and the proposal of a perturbation analysis to measure the significance of each image cue. The paper reveals that shape meaningfulness and geometric cues, especially shading, are crucial for 3D generation, and that models may overly rely on provided silhouettes. This work is significant to the academic community as it enhances the understanding of how modern 3D networks utilize classical vision cues, offering guidance for developing more transparent, robust, and controllable single-image 3D generation models and bridging the gap between classical computer vision and deep learning approaches.", "questions": "1. You've focused on several key image cues. Are there any other image cues that might also have a significant impact on single-image 3D generation, but were not considered in this study?\n\n2. How generalizable are the findings of this study across different datasets and categories of objects? Have you conducted any experiments to test the robustness of these conclusions?", "limitations": "yes", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 3, "clarity": 3, "significance": 4, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "Strengths\n1. Cue3D is the first comprehensive and model-agnostic framework for quantifying the influence of individual image cues in single-image 3D generation. This is a novel and important contribution to the field as it addresses the gap in understanding how modern 3D networks leverage classical vision cues. Second, \n2. The paper presents a unified benchmark covering seven state-of-the-art methods across different paradigms, providing a systematic way to evaluate and compare these methods. The perturbation analysis conducted in the paper offers valuable insights into the dependencies of single-image 3D models on various image cues, which can guide future research in developing more transparent, robust, and controllable models.\n\nWeaknesses\nWhile the paper provides a detailed analysis of the role of different image cues, it does not explore how these cues might interact with each other in more complex ways.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "The authors basically addressed my concerns in the rebuttal. I believe the findings are significant to the academic community as it enhances the understanding of how modern 3D networks utilize classical vision cues, offering guidance for developing more transparent, robust, and controllable single-image 3D generation models. I remain postive about the paper.", "rebuttal": "Response to Reviewer bRRe:\n\nThank you so much for your thoughtful and helpful comments!\n\nQ1: How do the cues interact with each other in more complex ways?\n\nA1: This is a really interesting point. The main difficulty in exploring more complex interactions between cues is that certain cues(e.g., texture and style) are inherently difficult to be combined in a meaningful way. We initially selected these cues because of their perceptual importance and interpretability to humans, rather than strict orthogonality. However, we completely agree that exploring these more nuanced interactions is a great direction for future research!\n\nQ2: Are there other important cues?\n\nA2: Great question! Yes, there are other important cues worth investigating. For example, as Reviewer MKBa also mentioned, material properties (like specularity and roughness), variations in lighting conditions, and viewing angles could all provide interesting insights.\nWe added an initial experiment exploring the interaction between shading and material properties (e.g., specularity). Specifically, we conduct this additional experiment on the GSO dataset and report results in CDx1000 following Table 3 (lower is better). We investigated combinations of environment map lighting vs. directional lighting, and default vs. large specularity.\n\n||OpenLRM|CRM|SF3D|InstantMesh|Hunyuan3D-2|Trellis|\n|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|\n|env map w/o large specularity(original)|80.89|68.07|61.58|54.54|41.82|39.64|\n|env map w/ large specularity|81.70(+0.81)|68.40(+0.33)|61.84(+0.26)|54.43(-0.11)|42.32(+0.50)|38.94(-0.70)|\n|directional w/o large specularity|84.19(+3.30)|72.00(+3.93)|67.26(+5.68)|60.60(+6.06)|42.77(+0.95)|43.97(+4.33)|\n|directional w/ large specularity|84.47(+3.58)|70.68(+2.61)|65.99(+4.41)|57.94(+3.40)|42.76(+0.94)|42.54(+2.90)|\n\nThis experiment yields interesting observations! Surprisingly, directional lighting significantly degraded performance for most models, except Hunyuan3D-2. Additionally, large specularity slightly improved performance in several cases, although not always, with the exception of OpenLRM and Hunyuan3D-2. We speculate that this might be related to the different lighting setup used in each model’s training. \n\nOne major benefit of Cue3D is that it is easily extensible. We expect more cues like this could be integrated in the future into our Cue3D framework.\n\nQ3: How generalizable are the findings? Test the robustness of the conclusion.\n\nA3: Thank you for raising this important point! We are quite confident that our findings are generalizable, since our findings generalizes across scanned real-world object dataset (GSO) and synthetic 3D assets dataset (Toys4K). We will also include a figure that analyzes per-category performance impact on Toys4K in the final version of the paper. Our conclusions are consistent across these different datasets and categories. Regarding the robustness, we include Appendix Table 4 to illustrate that our conclusions are robust to random seed. Meanwhile, also in response to Reviewer wyxx Q2, we will include statistical tests(specifically, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests) to clearly demonstrate that the observed drops in performance metrics are statistically significant.\n\nWe sincerely appreciate your valuable review. If you have any further comments or questions, we would be happy to discuss further!"}, {"review_id": "3YFZSGAlVK", "reviewer": "Reviewer_ahzB", "summary": "The paper proposes a framework for evaluating the influence of different image cues on image to 3D generation. The framework is based on perturbations of certain cues, and measuring the effect of each pertubation on performance. The authors demonstrate their framework on  a variety of models, trained using different paradigms, and use different metrics to measure the effect of different cues on performance.", "questions": "Please see weaknesses.", "limitations": "Yes.", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 2, "clarity": 3, "significance": 3, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "**Strengths**\n\n1.\tThe paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of the influence of different image cues on 3D generation. The framework is based on perturbations of certain cues, and evaluation of the effect using different metrics – this framework is interesting and useful.\n2.\tImage-to-3D is a core and critical task in computer vision, therefore such foundational evaluation/analysis frameworks are valuable to the community and can have a good impact.\n3.\tThe authors inspect a wide range of cues, from style to geometric cues, showing that their framework is generic and capable of providing a range of useful insights.\n4.\tThe authors demonstrate their framework on various image-to-3D models, based on different training techniques, which is crucial for reliable conclusions.\n5. The paper is mostly clearly written and easy to follow.\n\n**Weaknesses**\n\n1.\tMeaningfulness analysis: the authors found that shape meaningfulness is crucial for high-quality 3D generation results, evaluating the different models of Zeroverse. I have two concerns regarding the meaningfulness evaluation:\n*\tZeroverse provides random 3D structures that are semantically meaningless. However, there are other core differences between Zeroverse and datasets like GSO and Toy4K. Most importantly, GSO and Toy4K are based on natural/real-world objects and shapes, which often have internal symmetries that the model can leverage and are relatively \"smooth\". Zeroverse provide 3D shape that are a random composition of different 3D primitives with augmentations, creating very sharp transitions, unnatural shapes, holes and asymmetric patterns – which are out-of-distribution for the models (and so are the renderings of such objects). None of the models was trained with Zeroverse, hence it is very expected to see a drop in performance due to the out-of-distribution nature of the 3D assets.\n* Some of the models used for evaluation are based on pre-trained text-to-image models, trained on huge datasets of text-image pairs. Other models (as Trellis) are trained with text prompts as well. However, the authors completely ignore the text signal used to train some of the models. The text signal may have an important role in the sensitivity of models to meaningful shapes.Additionally, for models that are based on text-conditioned models, it is likely that the base models have not seen prompts that describe shapes as in Zeroverse.\n*\tTo me, it is not clear what would happen if some of the models were fine-tuned with Zeroverse assets (perhaps even with text prompts that describe the 3D structures). It is still possible that the performance would still be underwhelming, reinforcing the authors conclusions, but it is a gap in the evaluation.\n2.\tHow much and **why** different image-to-3D paradigms are sensitive to the different cues: the authors discuss three main paradigms for image-to-3D generation: regression-based, Multiview-based and 3D-based. While the authors show all the results for all the models (specifically the degradation in performance per model per perturbation), one aspect that is lacking analyzing groups of models, trained using one paradigm, and trying to understand whether certain paradigms are more sensitive or more robust to certain cues – and why. For example, following the first point, are methods based on text-to-image models more sensitive to meaningful shape, than regression-based models? The authors do provide some conclusions of that nature in section 4.2, but it feel too hand-wavy and not complete. In table 3, it would have been useful to mention the percentage of degradation in performance rather than the absolute numbers, or to provide a way to compare the sensitivity of different paradigms.\n3.\tThe main motivation of the authors is to provide a comprehensive evaluation framework which can contribute to advancements in image-to-3D generation. While I agree with them about the significance of such works, I think that a more thorough discussion about how the proposed insights can contribute to new image-to-3D models is lacking. Trying to re-train or fine-tune an image-to-3D model using the authors’ conclusions would have been significantly more convincing (I understand it may be out of scope for this research. Yet, a more convincing discussion is important).\n4. In the occlusion experiment, the authors propose to dilate the object mask, creating an occluded version of the input image, and mention that many models take object mask as input. The details of this experiment (mostly, the inputs to the model) are not entirely clear to me.\n* Are the models in table 3 take object masks as input? To the best of my knowledge, at least some of them were not trained with object mask as input.\n* Do the authors only provide the model with an occluded version of the object (without any signal about the occlusion region)? In this case, some \"occluded versions\" of the images can be a valid image by themselves (as in the example in figure 2 - which to me can be a valid object). Also, the models were never trained to complete occluded parts - so this evaluation setup seems unfair. It would be more convincing to fine-tune a model using occluded objects (so it can learn to complete occluded regions), and then investigate the sensitivity.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "Thank you to the authors for the detailed response.\n\nRegarding the textual signal: my intention was to highlight that the use of powerful text-to-image models (as base models before fine-tuning) in some of the baselines may contribute to better generalization of meaningful shapes — an aspect I believe is worth discussing.\n \nThe authors have addressed most of my concerns, expanded their insightful analysis beyond Zeroverse, organized the quantitative results by paradigm, and added a valuable discussion on how their conclusions can contribute to the training of new image-to-3D models.\n\nOverall, I believe the paper offers valuable insights to the community, and I appreciate the authors’ efforts during the rebuttal. I am happy to raise my score to Accept.", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your informative and thoughtful review!\n\nQ1a: Zeroverse domain gap: GSO and Toy4K are based on natural/real-world objects and shapes, with internal symmetries and are relatively \"smooth\", Zeroverse is not; Model has not see Zeroverse data.\n\nA1a: Thanks for pointing this out. We agree with the reviewer’s observation. We will first describe our motivation of using Zeroverse, and then present an alternative quantitative experiment shape cutmix. This experiment validates that when we (i) reduce the domain gap, (ii) preserve more shape cues like symmetry and smoothness, (iii) on data similar to the training data domain, shape meaningfulness remains an impactful cue.\n\nOur motivation for using zeroverse is because it completely destroys the shape meaningfulness cue. It could be seen as an upper-bound experiment: if the model reasons about 3D shape in a completely geometric way and does not require shape to be meaningful, it should still be able to generate Zeroverse objects. We do agree we should have more experiments on the middle ground: we try to reduce the domain gap and preserve more shape cues when weakening shape meaningfulness. \n\nWe introduce several different settings for our CutMix experiments:\n1. Half-and-half: We mix half of mesh M with the other half of mesh N to construct a new mesh from GSO meshes. This limits the distribution shift and preserves many local and global shape cues (e.g., surface smoothness, local symmetry), and also preserves a significant amount of shape meaningfulness to human perception. We show 3 variants: front-back, left-right, and top-bottom.\n2. Standard cube-based CutMix. We follow the CutMix paper and randomly sample an axis-aligned 3D cube within the bounding cube of the object. We replace the part of mesh M that falls into the cube with the part from mesh N that falls into the same cube. When sampling the cube, we pin one of its corners at the corner of the object bounding cube to avoid significant discontinuity in the output shape. The length ratio(length_{sampled cube}/length_{bounding cube}) is uniformly sampled from [0.4, 0.6]. Most parts of the object M are outside the chosen cube and remain intact. Meanwhile, the local shape cues are mostly preserved.\n\n3. OctantMix. We center each mesh and split it into 8 octants by the coordinate planes (xy, yz, and xz planes). Then we replace the part in each octant by the corresponding part from other random meshes from the same dataset. This variant still preserves the local shape cues, and it has a significantly smaller distribution gap than zeroverse compared to our original evaluation data (GSO).\n\nWe show the result on the GSO dataset, compared to Zeroverse numbers for reference. We use the CDx1000 metric following Table 3, lower is better.\n\n||OpenLRM|CRM|SF3D|InstantMesh|Hunyuan3D-2|Trellis|\n|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|:---|\n|Original|80.89|68.07|61.58|54.54|41.82|39.64|\n|Top-Bottom|93.08(+12.19)|84.05(+15.98)|78.05(+16.47)|80.16(+25.62)|57.94(+16.12)|67.32(+27.68)|\n|Front-Back|88.96(+8.07)|80.79(+12.72)|70.89(+9.31)|69.26(+14.72)|51.74(+9.92)|58.95(+19.31)|\n|Left-Right|90.97(+10.08)|84.44(+16.37)|75.17(+13.59)|80.92(+26.38)|60.56(+18.74)|72.23(+32.59)|\n|CutMix|89.33(+8.44)|78.31(+10.24)|69.77(+8.19)|73.93(+19.39)|59.43(+17.61)|65.36(+25.72)|\n|OctantMix|97.35(+16.46)|89.96(+21.89)|92.43(+30.85)|89.49(+34.95)|75.05(+33.23)|79.94(+40.30)|\n|Zeroverse|96.59(+15.70)|81.45(+13.38)|90.34(+28.76)|89.47(+34.93)|78.09(+36.27)|78.14(+38.50)|\n\nThe results show that all variants still significantly harms performance. In particular, despite a significantly smaller domain gap to GSO, OctantMix leads to a similar performance drop as zeroverse, indicating catastrophic failure. Standard CutMix only alters approximately 1/8 of the mesh volume, but it also causes a very significant drop(e.g., 20 points for Hunyuan3D-2). Even for the minimal half-and-half perturbations, where shape meaningfulness still largely remains, we still observe significant performance drop of >10 points most of the time. This performance drop is still very significant compared to the effect of other cues. These results highlight the importance of shape meaningfulness, since the models have significant difficulty to generalize even when we only partially perturb this cue, especially compared to other cues like texture meaningfulness.\n\n\n\n\nQ1b: Some models are based on text-to-image models, some are trained on text prompts. Text signal corresponding to Zeroverse is unseen.\n\nA1b: We appreciate your comment and want to clarify a potential misunderstanding: we did not use text as input in our experiments, and none of the models have directly seen paired text and 3D assets. Regarding Trellis specifically, we used its image-to-3D checkpoint, which indeed was not trained on any text. You are correct that Multi-view diffusion (MVD)-based models (LGM, CRM, InstantMesh) starts from text-to-image models before further training on Objaverse, while the other models haven't seen any text during training. While text-based pretraining might influence the capabilities of the three MVD-based models, we believe this is not a major concern because both text-pretrained models and those without text pretraining exhibited similarly significant performance drops under shape meaningfulness perturbation. Since our main focus is on image-to-3D modeling, we believe exploring text-based generalization would be valuable future work.\n\n\n\nQ2: Paradigm-wise sensitivity to cues and why; Percentage of degradation\nA2: Thank you very much for this helpful suggestion. We completely agree that grouping the models by paradigm and quantifying their relative sensitivity helps clarify which cues each family relies on most. Below, we summarize our current results paradigm-wise using percentages and provide additional interpretation.\nThe following table shows the percentage of performance change on the GSO dataset. Since directly computing percentages on Chamfer Distance is not meaningful, we first calculate an F1 score at a Chamfer Distance threshold following SF3D [1], and then compute the percentage change based on this F1 score:\n\n||Regression-based|Multi-view|Native3D|\n|:--|:--|:--|:--|\n|Shading|-7.78%|-3.54%|-6.77%|\n|Silhouette|-21.41%|-14.62%|-4.81%|\n|Occlusion|-5.95%|-10.76%|-11.69%|\n|Edges|-5.76%|-7.24%|-6.71%|\n|Perspective|-8.28%|-3.23%|-5.66%|\n|Style|-7.88%|-6.17%|-11.64%|\n|Local continuity|-8.92%|-8.20%|-12.02%|\n\nIt's worth noting that no metric is perfectly linear with respect to model performance, so direct percentage comparisons might not be entirely fair between higher- and lower-performing models. Nonetheless, we can still draw several interesting conclusions. For instance, multi-view models seem less affected by shading due to their rich pretraining on text-to-image data. Native 3D models appear more robust to silhouette perturbations, possibly due to their generative training objectives. We'll include a more detailed discussion of these insights in the final version of the paper.\n\n\n\nQ3: More discussion on how proposed insights can contribute to new image-to-3D models.\n\nA3: We sincerely appreciate this question, and we fully understand your intention to help improve our paper. We agree that illustrating how our conclusions can inspire future research is valuable. Due to limited time and resources, we were not able to retrain or fine-tune multiple models. However, we made an effort to illustrate how our insights could inspire new research directions. Specifically, we explored a line-art-to-3D application, where the input is a simplified line-art image (in our case, extracted from GSO images), and the goal is to recover the underlying 3D structure. Below, we report results in terms of Chamfer Distance x 1000 following Table 3 (lower values indicate better performance):\n\n\n|Input Image|InstantMesh|SF3D|Trellis|\n|:---|:---|:---|:---|\n|Original|54.5|61.6|39.6|\n|Line-art|66.1|79.5|51.3|\n|Line-art + Geometric Cues|59.4|67.4|50.0|\n\nOur Cue3D analysis emphasizes that semantics alone are not sufficient and highlights the importance of geometric cues (L57). This point is especially relevant in the line-art-to-3D scenario, as line-art inherently lacks detailed surface properties to inform 3D reconstruction. Directly using line-art images results in significantly worse 3D reconstructions than original images. Inspired by our analysis, we leveraged an image diffusion model (Flux ControlNet) conditioned on line-art, prompting it to generate geometric cues (e.g., shading and texture) through prompting for 3D rendering-style outputs. This approach significantly improved performance, validating that our proposed insights could meaningfully contribute to future research in image-to-3D.\n\n\nQ4: Occlusion experiment clarification; Occluded version could be a valid object; Fine-tuning a model using occluded objects.\n\nA4:  Thanks for bringing up this important point. To clarify, all models evaluated take masks as input and have been trained specifically on image+mask combinations. Your suggestion that occluded versions of objects could sometimes represent valid objects is indeed insightful, as occlusion naturally introduces ambiguity. However, our primary objective is to evaluate whether the models have learned a robust prior distribution of plausible 3D shapes. Ideally, models should reconstruct shapes that align with their learned 3D priors, despite ambiguity from occlusions. Additionally, we fully acknowledge that fine-tuning on occluded images could further improve performance. To explore this, we're currently evaluating Amodal3R [2], a version of Trellis fine-tuned explicitly on occluded images, on our occlusion perturbation. We will include these results as soon as the evaluation is complete.\n\nReference\n\n[1] Boss et. al., SF3D: Stable Fast 3D Mesh Reconstruction with UV-unwrapping and Illumination Disentanglement, 2025\n\n[2] Wu et. al., Amodal3R: Amodal 3D Reconstruction from Occluded 2D Images, 2025"}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper introduces Cue3D, a comprehensive and model-agnostic framework for quantifying how modern single-image 3D generation models use classic visual cues like shading, texture, and silhouette. The work is very well-motivated, and the proposed benchmark and analysis provide valuable insights into the inner workings of state-of-the-art models, revealing key dependencies on geometric cues and shape meaningfulness. All reviewers converged on an "Accept" recommendation after an exceptionally thorough and constructive discussion period, where the authors provided extensive new experiments and clarifications that successfully addressed all initial concerns.
Decision: Accept (spotlight)