Title: GOATex: Geometry & Occlusion-Aware Texturing
Venue: NeurIPS 2025
Accepted: yes
Keywords: 3D

Mesh

Texturing
Abstract: We present GOATex, a diffusion-based method for 3D mesh texturing that generates high-quality textures for both exterior and interior surfaces. While existing methods perform well on visible regions, they inherently lack mechanisms to handle occluded interiors, resulting in incomplete textures and visible seams. To address this, we introduce an occlusion-aware texturing framework based on the concept of hit levels, which quantify the relative depth of mesh faces via multi-view ray casting. This allows us to partition mesh faces into ordered visibility layers, from outermost to innermost. We then apply a two-stage visibility control strategy that progressively reveals interior regions with structural coherence, followed by texturing each layer using a pretrained diffusion model. To seamlessly merge textures obtained across layers, we propose a soft UV-space blending technique that weighs each texture’s contribution based on view-dependent visibility confidence. Empirical results demonstrate that GOATex consistently outperforms existing methods, producing seamless, high-fidelity textures across both visible and occluded surfaces. Unlike prior works, GOATex operates entirely without costly fine-tuning of a pretrained diffusion model and allows separate prompting for exterior and interior mesh regions, enabling fine-grained control over layered appearances.

GOATEX: Geometry & Occlusion-Aware Texturing

Abstract

We present GOATEX, a diffusion-based method for 3D mesh texturing that generates high-quality textures for both exterior and interior surfaces. While existing methods perform well on visible regions, they inherently lack mechanisms to handle occluded interiors, resulting in incomplete textures and visible seams. To address this, we introduce an occlusion-aware texturing framework based on the concept of hit levels, which quantify the relative depth of mesh faces via multi-view ray casting. This allows us to partition mesh faces into ordered visibility layers, from outermost to innermost. We then apply a two-stage visibility control strategy that progressively reveals interior regions with structural coherence, followed by texturing each layer using a pretrained diffusion model. To seamlessly merge textures obtained across layers, we propose a soft UV-space blending technique that weighs each texture's contribution based on view-dependent visibility confidence. Empirical results demonstrate that GOATEX consistently outperforms existing methods, producing seamless, high-fidelity textures across both visible and occluded surfaces. Unlike prior works, GOATEX operates entirely without costly fine-tuning of a pretrained diffusion model and allows separate prompting for exterior and interior mesh regions, enabling fine-grained control over layered appearances. For more qualitative results, please visit our project page in this link.

1 Introduction

High-quality mesh textures are critical for creating digital assets across a wide range of applications, including gaming, animation, augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR), as they significantly enhance the believability of virtual environments and improve both user experience and immersion. Importantly, the realism isn't just needed for surfaces that are immediately visible-it also matters for inner details that users might see as they move around, interact with the environment, or change their viewpoint. For example, in architectural visualization, it's not enough to have well-textured house façades; interior features like walls, doors, and furnitures also need detailed textures, since users may examine them closely during a VR walkthrough. Similarly, in vehicle simulation, while the exterior body of a car or bus must appear authentic, interior textures, such as dashboards, seats, and ceiling panels, must also be rendered with high fidelity to support a seamless and immersive experience.

To address these increasing demands for realistic mesh texturing, recent advancements in text-toimage (T2I) diffusion models [42, 37, 40, 35, 20, 46, 34, 28, 29, 14, 43, 10, 9, 49] have played a critical role, advancing image creation by enabling artists and developers to synthesize highly detailed images directly from textual descriptions. Building upon this progress, text-to-texture generation approaches [39, 8, 6, 27, 53, 22, 21, 24, 59, 13, 3, 52] based on 2D image diffusion priors have emerged, aiming to alleviate the labor-intensive process of manual asset creation and make highfidelity texture generation more accessible. These methods usually operate by unprojecting multi-view rendering of the outer surface onto the mesh's UV map, leveraging 2D diffusion priors to achieve highquality texture synthesis. Moreover, techniques such as iterative painting [39, 8, 47, 25, 22, 21] and multi-view sampling [6, 27] further enhance view alignments, reducing visible seams and artifacts.

However, texturing interior surfaces remains a significant challenge, as existing methods that rely on multi-view unprojection lack access to occluded or internal geometries, often resulting in untextured regions. Several methods [8, 27] have attempted to address this gap with Voronoi-based filling techniques; however, such methods often result in visible seams and inconsistent surface textures. More recent works [53, 3, 52] have explored UV-space refinement and inpainting by fine-tuning diffusion models. These approaches are capable of texturing internal surface regions; however, they often fail to produce high-quality and plausible interior surfaces due to their reliance on UV space representations, which lack explicit geometric context, and the limited availability of training data that captures the high variability of UV map structures with high-quality interior surface textures.

To this end, we propose GOATEX, the first occlusion-aware mesh texturing method that explicitly targets the underexplored challenge of inner surface texturing. Our key idea is to treat the mesh as a layered structure and progressively reveal surfaces from the outside in, guided by ray-based visibility analysis. We begin by casting multi-view rays to compute hit levels , which quantify the relative depth of mesh regions and partition the surface into ordered visibility layers, facilitating a subsequent process of rendering pipeline that progressively exposes occluded geometry. To preserve the overall shape and identity of the object throughout the progression, we introduce a two-stage visibility control strategy that combines residual face clustering with normal flipping and backface culling. This allows new interior surfaces to be exposed without distorting the mesh's global structure. Each layer is then textured independently using MVD module [27] with pretrained depth-conditioned diffusion model [54]. To merge these textures seamlessly, we propose a UV-space blending scheme based on view-dependent visibility weights, which avoids seams and style inconsistencies. Experiments show that GOATEX produces high-quality textures across both visible and occluded regions, while enabling fine-grained control over layered appearance through separate prompts for exterior and interior surfaces.

The contributions of this paper are summarized as follows:

To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to introduce and address the task of generating realistic textures for occluded interior surfaces of 3D meshes alongside exterior regions, a practically important yet still underexplored challenge in the 3D mesh texturing literature.

We propose GOATEX, a ray-based occlusion-aware framework that textures both exterior and interior regions without requiring tuning of pretrained diffusion models. Our method also supports dual prompting for inner and outer surfaces, enabling fine-grained control over layered structures.

User studies and GPT-based evaluations show that GOATEX is strongly preferred over existing methods, achieving state-of-the-art texture quality across both visible and occluded surfaces.

2 Related Work

2.1 Texture Generation via 2D Diffusion Priors

While significant progress has been made in mesh texturing, earlier methods [31, 30, 17, 32, 41, 44, 33, 7, 45, 16, 5] were often limited by their dependence on scarce high-quality 3D datasets. More recently, the focus has shifted toward zero-shot texture generation using publicly available text-toimage (T2I) diffusion models [40, 35, 54], enabling effective texture synthesis without extensive 3D training data. Many current methods employ a project-and-inpaint strategy [39, 8, 47, 25, 22, 21], synthesizing initial textures from a canonical view and subsequently inpainting missing regions. For instance, TEXTure [39] and Text2Tex [8] incrementally generate seamless textures using depthconditioned diffusion models guided by trimaps. However, such methods often face cross-view inconsistency due to limited global geometric context. To address this, TexFusion [6] proposes a Sequential Interlaced Multi-view Sampler (SIMS), integrating multi-view appearance cues during denoising for improved consistency. Other approaches [24, 59] optimize UV maps directly through multi-view renderings and score distillation sampling (SDS) [36], although these methods typically require substantial computational resources. SyncMVD [27] further improves coherence through a Multi-View Diffusion module employing view synchronization techniques [2, 26, 23, 50]. Similar to these prior works, our GOATEX leverages powerful 2D diffusion priors but uniquely addresses occluded interior regions. Our method explicitly identifies and progressively textures internal surfaces by employing ray-based visibility analysis to systematically expose and handle inner surfaces.

2.2 Geometry-Aware Texture Generation via 3D Mesh-Based Training

Recent advances leverage large-scale 3D datasets, such as Objaverse [12, 11], enabling training of sophisticated texture generation models directly on textured meshes. FlashTex [13] introduces LightControlNet to disentangle lighting effects from surface materials, improving relighting capabilities. Paint3D [53] employs a coarse-to-fine generative framework, initially synthesizing textures with a depth-aware 2D diffusion model and subsequently refining them through dedicated UV Inpainting and UVHD modules. Similarly, TEXGen [52] adopts a hybrid 2D-3D strategy, directly training a specialized UV-space generative model without a coarse-to-fine approach. Geometry-aware approaches like Hunyuan3D-Paint [57] and CLAY [55] utilize mesh geometry conditions, such as normal and position maps, to guide diffusion models that generate multi-view tiled images used for texturing. Specifically, Hunyuan3D-Paint introduces canonical normal and coordinate maps into the diffusion process, incorporating reference and multi-view attention mechanisms, while CLAY synthesizes diffuse, roughness, and metallic maps conditioned on normal maps and reference images. Meta3DTextureGen [3] builds upon these concepts, initially generating multi-view tiled images conditioned on geometry, and further enhancing the texture quality through an additional UV space inpainting network. Despite these advancements, current methods primarily focus on exterior surfaces or, even when generating interior textures in UV space, face difficulties producing plausible interior surfaces due to a lack of high-quality interior texture data.

3 GOATEX: Geometry & Occlusion-Aware 3D Mesh Texturing

Texturing the interior surfaces of a 3D mesh poses a unique challenge: these regions are often fully occluded from external viewpoints and receive little to no coverage in conventional rendering-based pipelines. To this end, we propose GOATEX, an occlusion-aware framework for texturing of both exterior and interior mesh regions. A schematic overview of our pipeline is shown in Fig. 2.

3.1 Ray-Based Hit Level Assignment for Layered Geometry Decomposition

Our method begins with estimating the relative visibility depth of different regions of the mesh, which allows us to progressively expose and render from exterior to interior surfaces during subsequent texturing stages. This is achieved through two key steps: (1) grouping mesh faces into structurally coherent regions called superfaces, (2) assigning a hit level to each superface based on ray casting.

Superface Construction. Directly assigning hit levels to individual faces can result in fragmentation, where adjacent faces belonging to the same planar region are assigned different hit levels due to the mesh's composition of numerous small faces (as in top-left pane of Fig. 2), undermining the generation of semantically consistent and plausible textures in the subsequent stages. To address this,

Output

MVD

Module

(2) Hit Level Assignment via Ray Casting

(1) Superface Construction

Ray Casting & Weight Computation

Hit Level

Assignment

Oversegmentation

Original Mesh

Input Mesh

Hit Level

Assignment

(3) Progressive Visibility Control

⋮

(5) Weighted UV Blending

Clustered Mesh

Exterior

Interior

Exterior

Interior

Residual Face

Clustering

Original Face Set

Complement Face Set

Depth Rendering

Depth

(4) Texture

Synthesis

MVD

Module

MVD

Module

⋮

UV Map

Weight Map

⨀

⨀

⨀

⨀

A post-apocalyptic

rusted bus with chairs

bolted to the floor.

Hit Level 2

Hit Level 3

Hit Level 4

Hit Level 1

⋯

W=0.8

W=0.2

we use Xatlas library [51] to oversegment the mesh into connected, low-curvature regions, referred to as atlases. Each atlas is treated as a superface and serves as the basis for hit level assignment.

Hit Level Assignment. Next, we cast rays from multiple viewpoints, recording both their intersection order and directional influence on the surface. These information are then aggregated across all rays to determine the most representative hit level for the superface. Each ray's influence is weighted by the cosine similarity between its direction and the face normal, with more direct (i.e., near -1 ) intersections given greater importance and having a stronger impact on the hit level assignment.

Formally, the influence weight W ( f, k ) of a ray r with intersection order k on face f is defined as:

where R k ( f ) is the set of rays intersecting face f with intersection order k , n ( f ) is the normal vector of the face f and d ( r ) is the direction of the ray r . Finally, we aggregate these directional weights to determine the hit level H ( SF i ) , the most dominant intersection order for the superface SF i :

3.2 Visibility Control for Structurally Coherent Layered Texturing

Once each face has been assigned a unique hit level based on its visibility depth, a straightforward texturing approach is to render and texture faces independently by hit level, starting from the outermost faces at the lowest hit level and proceeding inward to those at the highest. That is, at each hit level k , one could simply construct the set of faces F init k = ⋃ H ( SF i )= k SF i assigned to that level, render their depth maps, and condition a depth-conditioned 2D diffusion model to generate textures for them.

However, this naive strategy suffers from a critical drawback: as illustrated in Fig. 3, the face clusters associated with higher hit levels become increasingly sparse and fragmented. This leads to incomplete and disjointed geometry in the rendered depth maps, which deviate from the coherent structures typically found in natural objects. As a result, the diffusion model receives out-of-distribution (OOD) inputs, impairing its ability to generate plausible textures for interior regions.

We address these issues with a two-stage visibility control strategy: (1) residual face clustering to construct denser, progressively revealed geometry; and (2) normal flipping with backface culling to

preserve global shape. These components together ensure that each depth map preserves both the structural fidelity and contextual coherence necessary for robust texture generation.

Residual Face Clustering. To address the sparsity, we redefine the set of faces rendered at each stage by adopting a residual face clustering strategy. That is, rather than rendering only the faces uniquely assigned to hit level k , we render the full set of untextured faces remaining from previous levels. The resulting residual face set F res k is defined as:

where F is the complete set of mesh faces. Analogous to peeling layers of an onion, this formulation enables the progressive exposure of deeper yet untextured geometry for subsequent texturing.

Normal Flipping & Backface Culling. Residual clustering mitigates sparsity but doesn't prevent the monotonic drop in visible faces across deeper hit levels (see Fig. 3, middle). This results in increasingly sparse depth maps that lack structural cues, yielding out-of-distribution inputs for the diffusion model and degraded texture quality.

To this end, we introduce a technique based on normal flipping and backface culling . At each hit level k , we keep all mesh faces but flip the normals of those already textured in earlier levels, turning front-facing surfaces into backfaces relative to current rays, or vice versa. Due to the backface culling, faces whose normals point within 90 ◦ of the view direction are removed. Thus, flipped surfaces that previously faced the camera (e.g., on the near side) become temporally hidden, as if removed from the scene. Meanwhile, faces once back-facing (e.g., on the far side) may now face the camera and become visible. As a result, this view-dependent behavior reveals untextured interiors, while preserving object structure and enhancing per-view visibility. Formally, rendered faces at level k are:

where F and F res k denote flipped versions of F and F res k , respectively.

3.3 Weighted UV-Space Blending for Layered Texture Synthesis

Finally, for each hit level k , we generate one texture by rendering multi-view depth maps using the visibility-controlled face cluster F k . These depth maps are then used to condition a pretrained texture generation module (MVD module [27]), resulting in a distinct texture map UV k for each hit level.

A straightforward way to combine these per-level textures is to simply overwrite or average them across hit levels. However, as illustrated in Fig. 4, such naïve approaches often result in noticeable visual artifacts or the loss of clear boundaries between interior and exterior surfaces.

To address this, we introduce a UV-space texture merging scheme. For each view v at hit level k , we compute a UV-space weight W ( v ) k based on the absolute cosine similarity between the view direction and the face normal, reflecting how much a given view contributes to each texel in the final texture.

The total visibility weight W k for each hit level k is computed by aggregating contributions across views and further normalized across the hit levels using a modified softmax function:

where M k is a binary UV mask indicating valid texels at hit level k , and H is the total number of hit levels. The normalized weight W k represents the relative influence of hit level k on each texel.

The final merged texture UVF is computed as:

where UV k is the texture generated at hit level k . This soft blending method effectively suppresses artifacts caused by abrupt transitions or simplistic averaging across independently textured regions.

4 Experiments

4.1 Implementation Details

For all experiments, we use Stable Diffusion 1.5 [40] combined with a depth-based ControlNet [54] to generate multi-view images from input text prompts, where prompts are augmented with viewspecific cues [39, 27] to match orientations. Each view is rendered at a resolution of 768 × 768, with a corresponding latent resolution of 96 × 96. The latent UV texture map has a resolution of 512 × 512, and the final RGB UV texture map is generated at 1024 × 1024. For visibility and texture synthesis, the maximum hit level is set to 4; we define 16 hemispherical views (8 equatorial at 45 ◦ , 8 elevated at 45 ◦ ); Rendering is done with PyTorch3D [38]. Please find Appendix A1.1 for more details.

4.2 Experiment Setup

Dataset. For evaluation, we curate a diverse set of 139 assets from Objaverse [12] and 87 assets from Objaverse-XL [11], selecting 226 high-quality meshes with detailed interior geometries to assess the performance of our method. Each mesh is normalized to a unit bounding box. To provide diverse and rich prompts that capture both exterior and interior characteristics, we generate mesh captions using GPT-4o. A detailed description of the captioning process is provided in Appendix A2.1.

Metric. Mesh texturing literature [8, 6, 27, 53, 52] commonly adopt FID [19], KID [4], and CLIPbased metrics [18, 15], such as CLIP-I and CLIP-T, to evaluate visual quality and text alignment. However, these metrics are ill-suited to our setting for two main reasons. First, ground-truth textures are often unavailable-especially in occluded mesh regions-rendering reference-based metrics like FID/KID and CLIP-I inapplicable. Second, recent work [48, 56, 1] shows that CLIP-based models are sensitive to rendering artifacts and correlate poorly with human judgment in texture assessment.

Therefore, we adopt both a user study and a GPT-based evaluation [48, 56] to assess text alignment and perceptual quality. Specifically, we conduct an A/B preference test, in which participants or a family of GPTs (e.g., GPT-4o-mini, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, and GPT-o3) view side-by-side renderings of each method's textured mesh, including both exterior and interior views, and select the result that better matches the textual prompt and exhibits higher texture quality. See Appendix A3 for the details.

Baselines. We compare our method against publicly available project-and-inpaint approaches (TEXTure [39] and SyncMVD [27]) as well as the methods based on UV inpainting (Paint3D [53] and TEXGen [52]). For TEXGen, since it requires both a mesh and an RGB UV texture map as input, we unwrap the mesh and initialize the UV texture map using the output generated by SyncMVD. An analysis of TEXGen with respect to the input UV map is presented in Appendix A1.2.

4.3 Analysis on Visibility Control & UV Texture Merging

Visibility Control To assess the effectiveness of our visibility control strategy (§ 3.2), we conduct analysis by ablating residual face clustering and normal flipping. As illustrated in Fig. 3, disabling both components (left pane) results in sparse and fragmented face clusters, particularly evident at hit levels 2 and 4 . Introducing residual face clustering alone (middle pane) mitigates the sparsity but still exhibits fragmentation, especially at hit level 4 . These limitations result in visible seams in the synthesized textures (e.g., along the edges of a chair) and incomplete reconstruction in occluded areas (e.g., floor surfaces). In contrast, applying both techniques (right pane) produces coherent clusters that reveal interior geometry while maintaining overall object structures in the conditioning views. This reduces artifacts and leads to the generation of semantically meaningful and visually consistent textures, underscoring the importance of both components for high-quality interior surface synthesis.

UV Texture Blending We further evaluate the effectiveness of our UV texture merging strategy (§ 3.3). In our visibility control scheme, the same mesh region can be textured across multiple hit levels, each with varying visibility confidence depending on the angle between the viewing ray and the surface normal. This overlap introduces challenges in merging textures from different levels. As shown in Fig. 4, naive strategies, such as direct overwriting or uniform averaging, fail to account for these confidence variations. They either indiscriminately replace textures or blend them without regard to visibility, leading to noticeable artifacts and loss of structural detail, particularly at inner and

Residual Clustering

Textured

Output

Hit Level 1

Hit Level 2

Hit Level 3

Hit Level 4

Depth

Image

Depth

Image

Depth

Image

Normal Flipping

Residual Clustering

Normal Flipping

Residual Clustering

Normal Flipping

州月

Blending (

Ours

)

Exterior

Interior

Overwriting

Averaging

View 1

View 2

View 1

View 2

View 1

View 2

View 1

View 2

View 1

View 2

View 1

View 2

outer boundaries. In contrast, our weighted blending approach leverages hit-level-specific visibility confidence to guide the merging process. This enables smooth and fine-grained transitions between layers, significantly reducing artifacts and enhancing overall visual quality.

4.4 Qualitative Comparison with Baselines

We qualitatively compare our method against existing approaches, as shown in Fig. 5. TEXTure and SyncMVD struggle to synthesize plausible interior textures due to their reliance on view-based generation followed by unprojection. This paradigm inherently lacks access to occluded geometry, leading to heuristic-based filling (e.g., V oronoi-based extrapolation) that results in simplistic, inconsistent textures and visible seams. In contrast, UV-space generation methods such as Paint3D and TEXGen show improved performance in interior regions by operating directly in UV space. However, they still exhibit limitations, often producing low-frequency textures like flat colors or repetitive patterns, because they are unable to differentiate between interior and exterior surfaces within the UV map. This design limitation reduces semantic richness and structural coherence in occluded areas.

Among all methods, GOATEX produces the most visually appealing and semantically coherent textures across both exterior and interior regions. This is achieved through its ray-based layered surface decomposition, which explicitly exposes occluded geometry, followed by visibility control strategies that progressively reveal hidden surfaces. These components provide precise geometric context, enabling the diffusion model to generate rich and plausible textures. Unlike baselines that

Input Mesh

Ours

SyncMVD

Paint3D

TEXGen

TEXTure

A dwarven forge beer mug carved from volcanic stone with a charred wooden handle, and a glowing red rune pattern swirling inside.

A clean beige cowboy hat with a bold autograph printed on the inner crown in black ink.

A lacquered chest with golden hinges and a silk interior embroidered with dragon motifs in gold thread.

A cable car adorned with ornate brass filigree patterns across its panels and rich mahogany wood textures polished to a deep sheen.

A bright red vintage car with weathered tan leather seats and a dashboard featuring brass-accented dials.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Preference Rate (%)

GOATex

GOATex

GOATex

GOATex

86.1%

13.9%

87.2%

12.8%

83.3%

16.7%

96.5%

vs TEXTure

vs Paint3D

vs TEXGen

Humans

0

20

40

60

80

100

Preference Rate (%)

GOATex

GOATex

GOATex

GOATex

50.2%

49.8%

69.4%

30.6%

81.3%

18.7%

86.4%

13.6%

vs TEXTure

vs Paint3D

vs TEXGen

GPTs

rely on heuristics or operate blindly in UV space, GOATEX performs structurally informed texturing of all surfaces, resulting in consistent and high-quality outputs across the entire mesh.

4.5 Quantitative Comparison with Baselines

Next, we present quantitative comparison results in Fig. 6. GOATex achieves strong and consistent preference from human raters across all comparisons. On the other hand, GPT-based evaluations rate

its relative advantage lower when compared to TEXTure and SyncMVD. We speculate that this is because GPTs tend to favor results with smoother interiors-such as those produced by TEXTure and SyncMVD, which either leave the interior unpainted or extend exterior textures inward through texture bleeding or heuristic V oronoi-based filling-over methods that explicitly paint interior regions, including Paint3D, TEXGen, and our GOATex. This suggests that GPTs may place greater emphasis on surface smoothness than on interior completeness and consistency.

To further quantify the agreement between human and GPT-based evaluations, we measured two types of metrics: (1) correlation using Pearson's r ( -1 ≤ r ≤ 1 , where r = 1 indicates perfect correlation), and (2) inter-rater agreement using Cohen's κ ( κ = 1 indicates perfect agreement). Pearson correlations between GPT-based and human ratings were: GPT-4o-mini: 0.22, GPT-4o: 0.31, GPT-4.1: 0.43, and GPT-o3: 0.34. Cohen's κ values (averaged over κ > 0 ) were: GPT-to-GPT: 0.54, user-to-user: 0.31, and user-to-GPT: 0.27.

The results reveal two key trends: (1) more advanced GPT models (e.g., GPT-4.1 and GPT-o3) exhibit stronger alignment with human raters, and (2) GPT models demonstrate higher internal consistency than human raters themselves. Interestingly, in 17 individual evaluation cases, user-to-GPT agreement exceeded κ = 0 . 5 , and in two cases, GPT-o3 achieved perfect agreement ( κ = 1 . 0 ) with a human rater, indicating that GPT-based judgments can closely reflect human perception in specific contexts.

4.6 Ablation Study

To better assess the contribution of each component in our occlusion-aware texture generation framework, we conduct an ablation study by progressively adding modules to the baseline texturing method (SyncMVD [27]). Following the same protocol as the quantitative evaluation in Sec. 4.5, each ablated variant is compared against SyncMVD via A/B preference tests using GPT-based evaluators. The overall win rates of the ablated configurations over the baseline are summarized in Tab. 1.

The results show consistent performance gains as the proposed components are progressively incorporated. A slight drop is observed when residual face clustering is applied without normal flipping and backface culling. This behavior is expected, as residual clustering alone cannot fully resolve occlusions. In certain cases, geometrically adjacent faces may be grouped into the same hit level even when one fully occludes the other from all external viewpoints. Consequently, the occluded face cannot be textured during its designated rendering stage and is subsequently excluded once that level completes, leading to missing interior details. In contrast, incorporating normal flipping and backface culling effectively suppresses already-textured outer surfaces while exposing previously hidden inner faces, ensuring that occluded regions become visible and correctly textured in subsequent stages.

4.7 Separate Prompt Conditioning for Inner and Outer Surfaces

A key advantage of GOATEX is its ability to support distinct prompts for exterior and interior mesh regions: Since textures are synthesized independently for each hit level via our text-guided MVD module, the textual prompt can be specified separately for each level. We demonstrate this capability in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7, where we assign one prompt to the outermost layer (hit level 1) to control the exterior appearance, and another to deeper layers (hit levels ≥ 2) to govern interior textures. As illustrated, GOATEX produces stylistically distinct and contextually appropriate textures for

… covered with snow outside.

… covered with snow outside.

… covered with snow outside.

Exterior

Interior

A brass framed lantern

…, with candle engraved with

curling vine patterns.

…, with violet candle.

…, with stained glass candle.

Exterior

Interior

interior regions, reflecting the semantics of the specified prompt. This feature introduces a new axis of controllability, empowering users to induce rich stylistic variation across surface layers through prompt design. It broadens the expressive potential of 3D assets and enables more diverse, imaginative 3D scene generation.

5 Discussion

We introduced GOATEX, a novel diffusion-based framework for 3D mesh texturing that addresses the challenge of generating high-quality textures for both exterior and occluded interior surfaces. By leveraging a ray-based visibility analysis to decompose the mesh into ordered layers, GOATEX enables progressive, occlusion-aware texturing from the outside in. Our two-stage visibility control mechanism ensures structural consistency during layer exposure, while the use of pretrained diffusion models ensures both quality and flexibility. A key strength of our approach is its support for separate prompting of inner and outer surfaces, enabling fine-grained stylistic control and expanding the design space for 3D content creation. Experimental results demonstrate that GOATEX outperforms existing methods in both texture fidelity and semantic coherence, particularly in regions that were previously difficult to access or stylize. We believe that GOATEX opens up new possibilities for controllable, high-fidelity mesh texturing, especially in applications requiring immersive and detailed environments. Future work may explore extending our framework to dynamic scenes, integrating material properties beyond texture, or further improving blending strategies for more complex topologies.

Despite the potential, our method has one primary limitation. Our current hit-level assignment is determined purely by geometric visibility (i.e., ray-intersection depth) and does not explicitly account for semantic coherence. Consequently, in complex geometries such as objects with thin openings or nested cavities, semantically unified regions may be divided across multiple hit levels, which can in turn cause minor texture discontinuities at their boundaries. In practice, however, our residual face clustering, view-dependent normal flipping, and soft UV-space blending effectively mitigate most of these artifacts, producing semantically plausible and visually coherent textures. Nevertheless, incorporating semantic-aware refinement into the hit-level assignment, e.g., grouping superfaces belonging to the same semantic volume using pretrained part-segmentation models, could further improve cross-region consistency. Future work may also explore integrating soft blending directly into the denoising process to enable simultaneous multi-view and multi-hit-level texturing for tighter cross-level coherence.

Acknowledgments and Disclosure of Funding

Kunho Kim was supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion(IITP) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (RS-2024-00398115, Research on the reliability and coherence of outcomes produced by Generative AI). Kunho Kim would like to thank Chanran Kim (Pseudo Lab) for the GPU support. Hyunjin Kim thanks Gihyun Kwon, Joo Young Choi, Juhyeong Seon for their helpful discussions.

References

Reza Abbasi, Ali Nazari, Aminreza Sefid, Mohammadali Banayeeanzade, Mohammad Hossein Rohban, and Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah. CLIP Under the Microscope: A Fine-Grained Analysis of Multi-Object Representation. In CVPR , 2025.

Omer Bar-Tal, Lior Yariv, Yaron Lipman, and Tali Dekel. MultiDiffusion: Fusing diffusion paths for controlled image generation. In ICML , 2023.

Raphael Bensadoun, Yanir Kleiman, Idan Azuri, Omri Harosh, Andrea Vedaldi, Natalia Neverova, and Oran Gafni. Meta 3D TextureGen: Fast and consistent texture generation for 3D objects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02430 , 2024.

Mikołaj Bi´ nkowski, Danica J. Sutherland, Michael Arbel, and Arthur Gretton. Demystifying mmd gans. In ICLR , 2018.

Alexey Bokhovkin, Shubham Tulsiani, and Angela Dai. Mesh2Tex: Generating mesh textures from image queries. In ICCV , 2023.

Tianshi Cao, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Nicholas Sharp, and KangXue Yin. TexFusion: Synthesizing 3D textures with text-guided image diffusion models. In ICCV , 2023.

Eric R. Chan, Connor Z. Lin, Matthew A. Chan, Koki Nagano, Boxiao Pan, Shalini De Mello, Orazio Gallo, Leonidas Guibas, Jonathan Tremblay, Sameh Khamis, Tero Karras, and Gordon Wetzstein. Efficient geometry-aware 3D generative adversarial networks. In CVPR , 2022.

Dave Zhenyu Chen, Yawar Siddiqui, Hsin-Ying Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, and Matthias Nießner. Text2Tex: Text-driven texture synthesis via diffusion models. In ICCV , 2023.

Junsong Chen, Chongjian Ge, Enze Xie, Yue Wu, Lewei Yao, Xiaozhe Ren, Zhongdao Wang, Ping Luo, Huchuan Lu, and Zhenguo Li. PixArtΣ : Weak-to-strong training of diffusion transformer for 4k text-to-image generation. In ECCV , 2024.

Junsong Chen, Jincheng Yu, Chongjian Ge, Lewei Yao, Enze Xie, Yue Wu, Zhongdao Wang, James Kwok, Ping Luo, Huchuan Lu, and Zhenguo Li. PixArtα : Fast training of diffusion transformer for photorealistic text-to-image synthesis. In ICLR , 2024.

Matt Deitke, Ruoshi Liu, Matthew Wallingford, Huong Ngo, Oscar Michel, Aditya Kusupati, Alan Fan, Christian Laforte, Vikram Voleti, Samir Yitzhak Gadre, Eli VanderBilt, Aniruddha Kembhavi, Carl Vondrick, Georgia Gkioxari, Kiana Ehsani, Ludwig Schmidt, and Ali Farhadi. Objaverse-XL: A universe of 10m+ 3D objects. In NeurIPS , 2023.

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.

Kangle Deng, Timothy Omernick, Alexander Weiss, Deva Ramanan, Tinghui Zhou Jun-Yan Zhu, and Maneesh Agrawala. FlashTex: Fast relightable mesh texturing with lightcontrolnet. In ECCV , 2024.

Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas Müller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, Dustin Podell, Tim Dockhorn, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Alex Goodwin, Yannik Marek, and Robin Rombach. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In ICML , 2024.

Rinon Gal, Or Patashnik, Haggai Maron, Amit H. Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. StyleGANNADA: Clip-guided domain adaptation of image generators. ACM TOG , 2022.

Jun Gao, Tianchang Shen, Zian Wang, Wenzheng Chen, Kangxue Yin, Daiqing Li, Or Litany, Zan Gojcic, and Sanja Fidler. GET3D: A generative model of high quality 3D textured shapes learned from images. In NeurIPS , 2022.

Paul Henderson, Vagia Tsiminaki, and Christoph H. Lampert. Leveraging 2D data to learn textured 3D mesh generation. In CVPR , 2020.

Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. CLIPScore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning. In EMNLP , 2021.

Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. In NeurIPS , 2017.

Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In NeurIPS , 2020.

Dong Huo, Zixin Guo, Xinxin Zuo, Zhihao Shi, Juwei Lu, Peng Dai, Songcen Xu, Li Cheng, and Yee-Hong Yang. TexGen: Text-guided 3D texture generation with multi-view sampling and resampling. In ECCV , 2024.

Dong Huo, Wei Zhang, and Jihoon Kim. TexDreamer: Towards zero-shot high-fidelity 3D human texture generation. In ECCV , 2024.

Jaihoon Kim, Juil Koo, Kyeongmin Yeo, and Minhyuk Sung. SyncTweedies: A general generative framework based on synchronized diffusions. In NeurIPS , 2024.

Youwang Kim, Minjae Hwang, and Chanwoo Lee. Paint-it: Text-to-texture synthesis via deep convolutional texture map optimization and physically-based rendering. In CVPR , 2024.

Sairaj Kumar, Aakash Mehta, and Joon Park. EASI-Tex: Edge-aware mesh texturing from single image. ACM TOG , 2024.

Yuseung Lee, Kunho Kim, Hyunjin Kim, and Minhyuk Sung. SyncDiffusion: Coherent montage via synchronized joint diffusions. In NeurIPS , 2023.

Yuxin Liu, Minshan Xie, Hanyuan Liu, and Tien-Tsin Wong. Text-guided texturing by synchronized multi-view diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12891 , 2023.

Simian Luo, Yiqin Tan, Longbo Huang, Jian Li, and Hang Zhao. Latent Consistency Models: Synthesizing high-resolution images with few-step inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04378 , 2023.

Simian Luo, Yiqin Tan, Suraj Patil, Daniel Gu, Patrick von Platen, Apolinário Passos, Longbo Huang, Jian Li, and Hang Zhao. LCM-LoRA: A universal stable-diffusion acceleration module. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05556 , 2023.

Michael Oechsle, Lars Mescheder, Michael Niemeyer, Thilo Strauss, and Andreas Geiger. Texture Fields: Learning texture representations in function space. In ICCV , 2019.

Keunhong Park, Konstantinos Rematas, Ali Farhadi, and Steven M. Seitz. PhotoShape: Photorealistic materials for large-scale shape collections. ACM TOG , 2018.

Dario Pavllo, Graham Spinks, Thomas Hofmann, Marie-Francine Moens, and Aurelien Lucchi. Convolutional generation of textured 3D meshes. In NeurIPS , 2020.

Dario Pavllo, Jonas Kohler, Thomas Hofmann, and Aurelien Lucchi. Learning generative models of textured 3D meshes from real-world images. In ICCV , 2021.

William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In ICCV , 2023.

Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. SDXL: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952 , 2023.

Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. DreamFusion: Text-to-3D using 2D diffusion. In ICLR , 2023.

Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125 , 2022.

Nikhila Ravi, Jeremy Reizenstein, David Novotny, Taylor Gordon, Wan-Yen Lo, Justin Johnson, and Georgia Gkioxari. Accelerating 3D deep learning with pytorch3d. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08501 , 2020.

Elad Richardson, Gal Metzer, Yuval Alaluf, Raja Giryes, and Daniel Cohen-Or. TEXTure: Text-guided texturing of 3D shapes. ACM TOG , 2023.

Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR , 2022.

Yu Rui, Dong Yue, Peers Pieter, and Tong Xin. Learning texture generators for 3D shape collections from internet photo sets. In BMVC , 2021.

Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Burcu Karagol Ayan, S. Sara Mahdavi, Rapha Gontijo Lopes, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. In NeurIPS , 2022.

Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, Tim Dockhorn, Andreas Blattmann, Patrick Esser, and Robin Rombach. Fast high-resolution image synthesis with latent adversarial diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12015 , 2024.

Tianchang Shen, Jun Gao, Kangxue Yin, Ming-Yu Liu, and Sanja Fidler. Deep Marching Tetrahedra: a hybrid representation for high-resolution 3D shape synthesis. In NeurIPS , 2021.

Yawar Siddiqui, Justus Thies, Fangchang Ma, Qi Shan, Matthias Nießner, and Angela Dai. Texturify: Generating textures on 3D shape surfaces. In ECCV , 2022.

Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. In ICLR , 2021.

Xiang Wang, Xiang Wu, and Ning Liu. Diffusion texture painting. In SIGGRAPH , 2024.

Tong Wu, Guandao Yang, Zhibing Li, Kai Zhang, Ziwei Liu, Leonidas Guibas, Dahua Lin, and Gordon Wetzstein. GPT-4V(ision) is a Human-Aligned Evaluator for Text-to-3D Generation. In CVPR , 2024.

Enze Xie, Junsong Chen, Junyu Chen, Han Cai, Haotian Tang, Yujun Lin, Zhekai Zhang, Muyang Li, Ligeng Zhu, Yao Lu, and Song Han. SANA: Efficient high-resolution image synthesis with linear diffusion transformers. In ICLR , 2025.

Kyeongmin Yeo, Jaihoon Kim, and Minhyuk Sung. StochSync: Stochastic diffusion synchronization for image generation in arbitrary spaces. In ICLR , 2025.

Jonathan Young. xatlas. https://github.com/jpcy/xatlas , 2018.

Xin Yu, Ze Yuan, Yuan-Chen Guo, Ying-Tian Liu, JianHui Liu, Yangguang Li, Yan-Pei Cao, Ding Liang, and Xiaojuan Qi. TEXGen: a generative diffusion model for mesh textures. ACM TOG , 2024.

Xianfang Zeng, Xin Chen, Zhongqi Qi, Wen Liu, Zibo Zhao, Zhibin Wang, BIN FU, Yong Liu, and Gang Yu. Paint3D: Paint anything 3D with lighting-less texture diffusion models. In CVPR , 2024.

Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In ICCV , 2023.

Longwen Zhang, Ziyu Wang, Qixuan Zhang, Qiwei Qiu, Anqi 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.

Xinlu Zhang, Yujie Lu, Weizhi Wang, An Yan, Jun Yan, Lianke Qin, Heng Wang, Xifeng Yan, William Yang Wang, and Linda Ruth Petzold. GPT-4V(ision) as a Generalist Evaluator for Vision-Language Tasks. arXiv preprint arxiv:2311.01361 , 2023.

Zibo Zhao, Zeqiang Lai, Qingxiang Lin, Yunfei Zhao, Haolin Liu, Shuhui Yang, Yifei Feng, Mingxin Yang, Sheng Zhang, Xianghui Yang, Huiwen Shi, Sicong Liu, Junta Wu, Yihang Lian, Fan Yang, Ruining Tang, Zebin He, Xinzhou Wang, Jian Liu, Xuhui Zuo, Zhuo Chen, Biwen Lei, Haohan Weng, Jing Xu, Yiling Zhu, Xinhai Liu, Lixin Xu, Changrong Hu, Shaoxiong Yang, Song Zhang, Yang Liu, Tianyu Huang, Lifu Wang, Jihong Zhang, Meng Chen, Liang Dong, Yiwen Jia, Yulin Cai, Jiaao Yu, Yixuan Tang, Hao Zhang, Zheng Ye, Peng He, Runzhou Wu, Chao Zhang, Yonghao Tan, Jie Xiao, Yangyu Tao, Jianchen Zhu, Jinbao Xue, Kai Liu, Chongqing Zhao, Xinming Wu, Zhichao Hu, Lei Qin, Jianbing Peng, Zhan Li, Minghui Chen, Xipeng Zhang, Lin Niu, Paige Wang, Yingkai Wang, Haozhao Kuang, Zhongyi Fan, Xu Zheng, Weihao Zhuang, YingPing He, Tian Liu, Yong Yang, Di Wang, Yuhong Liu, Jie Jiang, Jingwei Huang, and Chunchao Guo. Hunyuan3D 2.0: Scaling diffusion models for high resolution textured 3D assets generation. arXiv preprint arxiv:2501.12202 , 2025.

Qian-Yi Zhou, Jaesik Park, and Vladlen Koltun. Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09847 , 2018.

Yuqing Zhou, Yifan Sun, and Difan Chen. DreamMat: High-quality pbr material generation with geometryand light-aware diffusion models. ACM TOG , 2024.

NeurIPS Paper Checklist

1. Claims

Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We specify the contributions and scope in the abstract and in the final paragraph of the Introduction (Sec. 1).

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 in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.

The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.

It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as it is clear that these goals are 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 state this in the Limitations section (Appendix A6) of the supplementary material PDF.

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 are encouraged to create a 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, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a 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, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to 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, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.

3. Theory assumptions and proofs

Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: There is no theoretical result in the paper.

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 crossreferenced.

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 a short proof sketch to 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

Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We provide a detailed description of our method (Sec. 3), with Implementation Details (Sec. 4.2) included in the main paper and the Experimental Setup (Appendix A1.1) described in the supplementary material.

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 to make their results reproducible or verifiable.

Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is 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 one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g., in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed.

While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example

(a) If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make it clear how to reproduce that algorithm.

(b) If the contribution is primarily a new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.

(c) If the contribution is a new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either be a way to access this model for reproducing the results or a way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset).

(d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to 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 access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?

Answer: [No]

Justification: We use the Objaverse and Objaverse-XL datasets, both of which are open access. The code will not be made public at the time of submission; its release will be determined through further discussion at a later stage.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.

Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines ( https://nips.cc/ public/guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy ) 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 a new open-source benchmark).

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: //nips.cc/public/guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy ) for more details.

The authors should provide instructions on 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. If only a 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) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.

6. Experimental setting/details

Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: The experimental settings and details are described in the Implementation Details (Sec. 4.2) of the main paper and in the Experimental Setup (Appendix A1.1) of the supplementary material.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

The experimental setting should be presented in the core of 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, or as supplemental material.

7. Experiment statistical significance

Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?

Answer: [No]

Justification: Our evaluation is based on A/B testing, which does not allow for the computation of error bars.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.

The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence 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).

It 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 one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.

For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not 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 in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.

8. Experiments compute resources

Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: The compute resources used for the experiments are described in the Experimental Setup section (Appendix A1.1) of the supplementary material.

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 as well as 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 or failed experiments that didn't make it 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 https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines ?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: We conducted our research and prepared the paper in compliance with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.

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 a deviation from the Code of Ethics.

The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).

10. Broader impacts

Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?

Answer: [Yes]

Justification: This is discussed in the Broader Impacts section (Appendix A7).

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.

If the authors answer NA or 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 or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment 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 is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.

If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).

11. Safeguards

Question: 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)?

Answer: [NA]

Justification: We use publicly released models and datasets without any modifications, and therefore the work does not pose such risks.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.

Released models that have a 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 to 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.

We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.

12. 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 use only public datasets, Objaverse and Objaverse-XL, both of which are released under the Apache 2.0 license.

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 or dataset.

The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a 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 (e.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, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset.

For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.

If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset'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: We use only pre-existing datasets (Objaverse and Objaverse-XL). Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.

Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as 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 to 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: [Yes]

Justification: We conducted a user study using Amazon MTurk and used the results as a quantitative evaluation metric.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.

Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper.

According to 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 an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?

Answer: [No]

Justification: We do not obtain IRB approval.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.

Depending on 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 NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.

For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review.

16. Declaration of LLM usage

Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is an important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods in this research? Note that if the LLM is used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact the core methodology, scientific rigorousness, or originality of the research, declaration is not required.

Answer: [NA]

Justification: We use LLM solely for writing and editing purposes which do not impact the core methodology, and so on.

Guidelines:

The answer NA means that the core method development in this research does not involve LLMs as any important, original, or non-standard components.

Please refer to our LLM policy ( https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2025/LLM ) for what should or should not be described.

Appendix

In the appendix, we present additional implementation details (Sec. A1), the dataset gathering (Sec. A2.1) and captioning (Sec. A2.2) process, the evaluation setup (Sec. A3), a more detailed explanation of our method (Sec. A5), limitations (Sec. A6), broader impacts (Sec. A7), and additional qualitative results (Sec. A8). For information on the input text prompts not shown in the main paper and further results not included here, please refer to the project page link.

A1 Additional Implementation Details

A1.1 Detailed Experimental Setup

The experiment was conducted using a single RTX A6000 GPU, requiring 12GB of memory per inference. The inference time depends on the number of mesh faces and is calculated as (number of hit levels) × (inference time of the texture synthesis model). For hit level assignment, a total of 17 cameras were used: the original camera views from texture generation plus an additional top-view camera. Ray casting for hit level assignment was performed at a resolution of 1536×1536 using the Open3D [58] library. Since we utilize a pretrained Depth ControlNet [54] without additional training, no further training or training dataset is required.

A1.2 Implementation Details for Baselines

TEXGen [52] need a initial UV map that is completely aligned with input geometry. However, since the ground-truth UV map is unavailable for the mesh, we performed initialization through the three methods illustrated in Fig. A8 to execute TEXGen. All experiments were conducted using the SyncMVD [27] output UV map-which produced the most plausible results-as the input UV map for TEXGen.

Blacktextureinit.

Front view generation & projection init.

SyncMVD init.

A2 Dataset

A2.1 Dataset Gathering

We curate our dataset from Objaverse [12] and Objaverse-XL [11], selecting 226 high-quality meshes with detailed interior geometries to evaluate our method. To ensure diversity, we focus on 12 object categories that are likely to contain interior structures: box, bucket, bus, cabinet, car, drawer, house, lamp, room, shelf, tent, and truck.

Our primary selection criterion targets objects exhibiting realistic interior geometry at hit levels above 1. This includes two types of objects: (1) those with partially visible interior geometry due to occlusions in canonical views but are not fully enclosed (e.g., tents, igloos, half-open boxes), and (2) topologically closed objects whose interior geometries are entirely enclosed and occluded from all external views (e.g., houses, cars, buses).

We filter candidate meshes using metadata, searching for relevant keywords in descriptions and retaining only those with hit levels greater than 4. Each selected mesh is then manually inspected to ensure it contains realistic and non-trivially simplified interior geometry.

A2.2 Captioning

To generate rich and diverse captions that capture both the exterior and interior features of 3D objects, we follow a two-step process involving key visual element identification and prompt generation.

Key Visual Elements Identification. We begin by rendering each mesh from a fixed three-quarter viewpoint at four different hit levels, progressively revealing surfaces from the outermost to the innermost layers. We then task GPT-4o to analyze these multi-layered renderings to identify salient visual elements and structural features specific to each depth level. See Figure A9 for the detailed system prompt for this task.

Prompt Generation. Using the visual features extracted in the previous step, GPT-4o then generates 10 diverse text prompts for each mesh. These captions are crafted to explicitly describe both the external form and internal structure of the object and are later used as conditioning inputs for text-to-texture generation. For the system prompts used in this step, refer to Figure A10.

Prompt Template for Identifying Key Visual Elements and Structures

[System Instruction] You are given an object mesh file described through two modalities: 1. A caption summarizing the object. 2. Up to four rendering images that sequentially reveal the structure of the mesh. · The first image shows the outermost surface of the object. · The following images ( image2 to image4 ) gradually reveal interior details of the mesh. Your task is to identify only the most prominent, large-scale objects or structures within the mesh, using both the caption and the rendering images. · Ignore small or minor details. · Focus only on components that are visually dominant or structurally significant. · Include any objects or components mentioned in the caption, but remove descriptive modifiers (e.g., wooden cabin → cabin ). Output Format Your output should be in the following JSON format: { "objects": [/* list of object/component names as strings */] } Examples Input: Caption: Jungle tent Images: <image1> , <image2> , <image3> , <image4> Output: { "objects": ["tent", "candle", "sofa"] } Input: Caption: Vintage car Images: <image1> , <image2> , <image3> , <image4> Output: { "objects": ["car", "seats", "handle", "dashboard"] } Input: Caption: A hollow pumpkin head Images: <image1> , <image2> , <image3> , <image4> Output: { "objects": ["pumpkin head"] } [User Prompt] This is the caption: {caption}. These are the rendering images: {image1} {image2} {image3} {image4}. Now, please identify the objects or components in the mesh.

Prompt Template for Caption Generation from Object Mesh Files

[System Instruction]

You are given:

A base caption that describes an object mesh.

A list of component names (parts of the mesh).

Your task is to generate 10 unique and diverse one-sentence captions that describe both the outer and inner aspects of the mesh, focusing on the material, texture, style, and pattern of the components.

Requirements:

Do NOT describe the overall shape or structure of the object or any of its components.

Do NOT mention colors directly.

Use ambiguous or stylistic terms that imply visual variety (e.g., 'glossy', 'worn', 'textured', 'transparent', etc.).

Captions must reflect different styles, materials, or vibes - avoid repetition.

Each caption should reference the object's components, using the provided component list.

The tone and style of the caption can differ from the original (e.g., modern, fantasy, sci-fi, surreal, etc.).

Each caption must be a single sentence.

Output must be in JSON format with the key "ten_captions".

[User Prompt]

This is the original caption: {caption}.

These are the list of componetns: {components}.

Now, please generate 10 unique and diverse one-sentence captions that describe both the outer and inner aspects of the mesh, focusing on the material, texture, style, and pattern of the components.

A3 Evaluation Setup

As described in Sec. 4.4 of the main paper, we report preference statistics based on responses from user study and GPTs. Below, we provide additional details about the user study setup and protocol. Specifically, following the visualization style used on our project page, we rendered for each method:

one GIF showing the exterior of the object, and

one GIF showing the interior via a cut-away or sliced view.

These side-by-side visualizations were shown to participants or GPTs, providing one exterior and one interior view per method per object. We report results from 16 human raters who passed a vigilance test. The screen example of the user study is illustrated in Fig. A11.

To enable a more scalable preference analysis, we additionally conduct an automated evaluation using a family of GPTs, including GPT-4o-mini, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, and GPT-o3. For this study, we sample a total of 400 tasks. To eliminate potential bias due to ordering, each comparison is evaluated in both A/B and B/A presentation orders. Moreover, if the two judgments from opposite orders disagree, the evaluation is repeated up to 10 times until a consistent decision is reached. Tasks that still yield inconsistent results after 10 repetitions are excluded from the final analysis. The detailed system prompt used for this evaluation is shown in Fig. A12.

Human Intelligence Task: Visual Assessment on Mesh Texture Generation Models (20 mins)

showstheexternal andinternaltexturesof the3Dobjectgeneratedbyeachmethod atthe sametime.

Participants will be given a set of videos [left(outer & inner), and right(outer & inner)]. For eachset,videosweregeneratedfromthesamemesh(3Dmodel)andtextprompt.Given such videos Left, and Right, choose a video that you think is more plausbile.

1.First,choose the model that successfully textured both the exterior and interior without missing any parts.

2.If bothare similarin thatregard,choose themodel whose textures-both inside and out -arebetter aligned with the prompt.

3.If they are stillcomparable,choose the one that is visually more appealing in your judgment.

A mystic's tent with deep purple silk drapes embroidered in constellations, and * a black-lacquered desk topped with glowing runes.

O Left

O Right

Instruction for Evaluating Textured Mesh

[System Instruction]

You are given a text caption and two sets of rendered images generated by two anonymized text-to-texture models (Model A and Model B). Each model attempts to synthesize realistic textures for both the exterior and interior of a 3D object based on the given caption.

Each model provides:

3 external renderings, showing the textured outer surface of the object from different viewpoints.

3 internal renderings, showing the textured interior structure, such as cutaways or crosssections.

Your task is to:

Carefully read the text caption, which may describe details about the object's outer appearance, its internal textures or structure, or both.

Evaluate how well each model's textures match the caption:

-Use the external renderings to judge how well the outer textures reflect the description.

-Use the internal renderings to judge how well the interior textures or structures align with the caption.

Compare the two models holistically and determine which model (A or B) better captured the textures described in the caption, for both external and internal parts of the object.

Important Notes:

The model names 'A' and 'B' are anonymized. You must avoid any bias based on the label itself.

Your judgment should be based only on the alignment between the caption and the textures shown in the renderings.

Output Format

Return the name of the model that performed better: A or B.

[User Prompt]

This is the prompt: {prompt}.

Here are rendering images for the Model A. Outer: {image1} {image2} {image3}. Inner: {image4} {image5} {image6}

Here are rendering images for the Model B. Outer: {image1} {image2} {image3}. Inner: {image4} {image5} {image6}

Now, please choose model A or model B based on the caption and the images provided.

A4 Runtime Analysis

We systematically analyzed the runtime of our pipeline across meshes with increasing face counts by progressively subdividing mesh faces of five representative assets. For each mesh, we measured the number of faces and superfaces, time spent on superface construction, hit-level assignment, and MVD-based rendering & synthesis. The table A2 shows the average runtime across the assets. Note that hit-level assignment is reusable when generating multiple variants, so we can preprocess the mesh before texturing.

A5 More Detailed Method Explanation

𝜃 > 90°

Frontface (Rendered)

Backface (Culled)

Mesh & Texture Representation. In standard mesh representations, each face is a single-sided surface that does not distinguish between its front and back; both sides appear visually identical. This means that any texture or color applied to one side of a face is also visible from the opposite side. Consequently, a mesh face does not have separate visual properties for the inside and outside; regardless of the viewing direction, the appearance remains the same.

To allow for different appearances on the two sides of a surface, such as when modeling an object with distinct exterior and interior textures, it is common to place two faces very close together, back to back. The outer face, slightly offset toward the exterior, is meant to be visible from outside the object, while the inner face is offset inward and intended to be seen from the inside. This setup allows each side to use its own texture and material properties. For example to represent both the painted exterior of a bus and its interior wall surface, the mesh includes one face for the outer shell and another for the inner wall. Each face can be textured independently to reflect its visual role.

Rendering with Normal Flipping & Backface Culling. During rendering with backface culling, faces whose normal vectors point away from the camera are not rendered. More precisely, as illustrated in Fig A13, when the angle θ between the viewing ray and the face normal falls within the

Face

Culled (Invisible)

Occluded (Invisible)

Normal Vector

Flipped Normal Vector

Interior

Geometry

Interior Geometry

Frontface Rendered

Occluded

(1) Before Normal Flipping

2D View

Interior

Geometry

Interior Geometry

Frontface Rendered

Backface Culled

(2) After Normal Flipping

2D View

range -90 ◦ < θ < 90 ◦ , the face is considered a back face and is culled from the rendering process. As a result, flipping the normal of a face that was previously visible causes it to become hidden, effectively simulating the removal of the face from view. We use this property to progressively reveal the internal geometries while preserving the object's overall shape and structures during subsequent rendering stages.

We further illustrate this process in Fig. A14, which depicts the current outermost layer of face clusters at rendering stage for hit level k (i.e., F k ), divided into two regions colored in orange and green, along with the occluded internal geometry shown in blue. For simplicity, we assume a single fixed camera viewpoint. Initially, the normals of F k are oriented outward, making only the orange region-being front-facing relative to the camera-visible and rendered, while the internal geometry remains hidden. In the next step, the normals of F k are flipped inward. As a result, the orange region becomes back-facing with respect to the camera and is culled during rendering, thereby revealing portions of the previously hidden internal geometry. Simultaneously, the green region of F k , which was initially back-facing and thus invisible, now has its normal oriented toward the camera. This allows the green region to become visible, unless it remains occluded by inner layers. This progressive rendering approach preserves the continuity of the overall geometry while revealing deeper layers, maintaining the object's global structure, boundary, and identity.

One potential concern arises when some internal mesh faces have normals directed inward, toward the object center, rather than outward. In such cases, if these inward-facing normals are flipped outward to make the faces visible from the camera, they can occlude deeper surfaces within the object, preventing access to further interior geometry (Fig. A15 (1)). However, this issue does not arise in practice due to the way hit levels are assigned. Specifically, hit levels are computed based on weights derived from Eq. 1, which use the negative cosine of the angle between face normals and ray directions (see Fig.A16). As a result, faces that are originally back-facing receive hit levels in the reverse order of intersection along the ray path, as illustrated in Case 2 of Fig. A15. This property ensures that when normal flipping is combined with backface culling, a valid hit level always exists that exposes each layer of interior geometry. Consequently, both exterior and interior surfaces can be progressively revealed and fully textured (Fig. A15 (2)).

⋮

1

3

N-1

N

-3

1

3

2

4

1

3

N-1

N

-3

Rendered Face (Visible)

Culled Face (Invisible)

Occluded Face (Invisible)

Normal Vector

Flipped Normal Vector

Interior is

invisible

due to the

occlusion by the face at hit level 2.

Interior is

visible

.

(1) Case 1

(2) Case 2

(Ours)

1

3

2

4

(Interior)

Hit Level 1

⋮

(Interior)

Higher Hit Level

⋮

(Interior)

Hit Level 1

⋮

(Interior)

Higher Hit Level

⋮

Hit Level

1, W = 0.9

Hit Level

2, W = 0

Hit Level

3, W = 0.8

Hit Level

4, W = 0

Hit Level

N

, W = 0

Hit Level

N-1

, W = 0.8

Hit Level

N-2

, W = 0

Hit Level

N-3

, W = 0.7

(Interior)

A6 Limitations

Our approach has a few limitations. While GOATEX is effective at generating high-quality interior textures, its reliance on the SD 1.5 backbone can occasionally result in suboptimal adherence to input text prompts. In future work, we plan to integrate more lightweight yet more capable pretrained diffusion models to enhance prompt fidelity and further improve texture quality.

Our current hit-level assignment is determined purely by geometric visibility (i.e., ray-intersection depth) and does not explicitly account for semantic coherence. Consequently, in complex geometries such as objects with thin openings or nested cavities, semantically unified regions may be divided across multiple hit levels, which can in turn cause minor texture discontinuities at their boundaries. In practice, however, our residual face clustering, view-dependent normal flipping, and soft UVspace blending effectively mitigate most of these artifacts, producing semantically plausible and visually coherent textures. Nevertheless, incorporating semantic-aware refinement into the hit-level assignment, e.g., grouping superfaces belonging to the same semantic volume using pretrained partsegmentation models, could further improve cross-region consistency. Future work may also explore integrating soft blending directly into the denoising process to enable simultaneous multi-view and multi-hit-level texturing for tighter cross-level coherence.

A7 Broader Impacts

Potential Positive Societal Impacts. It will be possible to further accelerate the existing 3D asset creation pipeline and generate a wider variety of assets. With these assets, we can expect to build even more realistic AR/VR environments. As a result, people will be able to enjoy a broader range of experiences.

Potential Negative Societal Impacts. Texture generation models present potential risks, such as the synthesis of deepfakes, textures resembling copyrighted content, or biased and discriminatory textured meshes. Future work should focus on developing robust mechanisms to mitigate these risks and enforce safeguards that prevent the generation of harmful or unethical outputs.

A8 Additional Qualitative Results

More qualitative comparisons can be found in Fig. A17, and additional qualitative results are shown in Fig. A18. For a more detailed presentation-including videos of the results and further outcomes-please see this link.

A post-apocalyptic rusted bus interior with chairs bolted to the floor.

A moss-covered circular stone well with a steep roof, nestled in a quiet forest clearing.

Input Mesh

Ours

SyncMVD

Paint3D

TEXGen

TEXTure

A weathered wooden house with rusted nails, cracked siding.

Peer reviews:
comments: SUMMARY:
The paper proposes an approach to simultaneously generate the internal and external textures of 3D objects.The paper utilizes an atlas to segment independent faces into superfaces.It divides the superfaces into different levels based on the order of multiple ray hits on the superfaces.The paper proposes residual face cluster to maintain the complete structure for generating reasonable textures and normal flip to make more occluded areas visible.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES:
Strengths：
The paper is the first to propose the work of simultaneously generating the internal and external textures of 3D objects.

Weaknesses：
The hit level is the core of the paper, and its changes under different settings should be described and presented in detail, rather than being included in the supplementary material.

QUESTIONS:
1.The hit level and its relationship with residual face cluster and normal flip are the core of your paper, which should be demonstrated more clearly rather than being placed in the supplement. This makes it difficult to follow.

2.The author has claimed to be the first work to simultaneously generate internal and external textures of objects, and the texture generation part relies on SyncMVD. Therefore, it is sufficient to compare the baseline SyncMVD and present more ablation studies. There is no need to compare with other texture generation models, as they completely collapse. Alternatively, such content can be moved to the supplement.

3.The ablation study uses complex car cases. Simple examples should also be presented to facilitate understanding of how different modules work.

4.Can a superface be assigned to different hit levels?

LIMITATIONS:
yes
TITLE: Official Review
CLARITY: 1
IMPACT: 3
ORIGINALITY: 3
DATE: 2025-06-25

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nCurrent texture generative models overlook one important problem: generating textures also inside the objects. The proposed method is arguably the first to explicitly tackle this problem by proposing a combination of several clever strategies to decompose complex meshes and texture their interior parts. They introduce the following steps: a superface construction, a hit level assignment performed with ray casting, progressive visibility control and a per-level UV blending. None of the novel components need to be learned and are used in conjunction with an existing pre-trained texturing neural network (MVD). An extensive qualitative evaluation was paired with user and GPT-based studies.\n\nSTRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES:\n### Strengths \n- The paper is generally well written and provides enough information to aid reproducibility\n- The proposed method offers a non-learning-based solution that can be potentially leveraged by multiple image-based texture generators without any fine-tuning or training. \n- Authors provided a very well-curated (anonymous) project page providing more results and animations. I am a strong believer that papers should be self-contained, therefore I consider it to be a nice addition which is not part of my assessment but still wanted to thank the authors for the additional effort.\n\n### Weaknesses and Suggestions\n- I think that it would be worth mentioning some methods that are not leveraging pre-trained image models and adopting different representations [i, ii, iii, iv]. These may be intrinsically capable of texturing objects inside, but in most cases given the more challenging generation settings (they do not operate on images), quality improvements would be needed for competing. Therefore, I think comparisons would be unnecessary. Yet mentioning alternative representations would make the related work and/or introduction more comprehensive. \n- I have a few reservations for the Experiment Section, which are later detailed in the Questions section.\n- I think that the limitations are not well analyzed. See Questions section. \n\n### Minor Comments and Suggestions\n- Adding \\\\( F_{k=0, ..., 3}^\\text{init} \\\\) and \\\\( F_{k=0, ..., 3}^\\text{res} \\\\) to Fig. 2 part 3 may aid the reader while reading Sec. 3.2. This addition may be part of the caption as well.\n- Figure 3 should be ideally placed in Sec. 3.2 and Figure 4 in Sec. 3.3.\n- In Figure 5, I believe the former name of the method (probably later renamed GOATex) is reported in all histograms.  \n- line 266: proressive -> progressive\n\n\nPS. It would be a pity if the authors confirmed their decision not to release their code, it would make the paper considerably more impactful. This is obviously not part of the assessment, and it is perfectly understandable if this is not possible. \n\n\n---------------\n\n[i] Yu, X., Dai, P., Li, W., Ma, L., Liu, Z., & Qi, X. (2023). Texture generation on 3d meshes with point-uv diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 4206-4216).\n\n[ii] Foti, S., Zafeiriou, S., & Birdal, T. (2024). Uv-free texture generation with denoising and geodesic heat diffusion. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37, 128053-128081.\n\n[iii] Wei, J., Wang, H., Feng, J., Lin, G., & Yap, K. H. (2023). Taps3d: Text-guided 3d textured shape generation from pseudo supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 16805-16815).\n\n[iv] Oechsle, M., Mescheder, L., Niemeyer, M., Strauss, T., & Geiger, A. (2019). Texture fields: Learning texture representations in function space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision (pp. 4531-4540).\n\nQUESTIONS:\nBesides mentioning the alternative techniques mentioned in the weakness section, I think the following questions need to be addressed:\n1. The images used for evaluation (reported in A3) depicted 3 images representing the interiors and only one image representing the exterior. Considering that the proposed method is the only one specifically designed to texture interiors, I would consider the test slightly biased. I think that showing 2 images of the interiors and 2 of the exteriors or simply separating them would have been a fairer assessment. \n2. The authors mention that other metrics like FID, KID, etc. are not well suited. I wonder if comparing against real or generated interior images could have been an option. \n3. What is the number of participants recruited in the user study? I don't seem to find it either in the paper or in the supplementary materials.\n4. It would be interesting to know where humans and GPT disagree and see some case where the other methods are better? Were the authors able to identify some patterns?\n5. A potential limitation may be the computational overhead for the full pipeline, but this information is poorly reported. Authors mention in the appendix that the computational time depends on the number of faces, but do not provide estimates. I think that it would be nice to report a plot reporting the number of faces on the x-axis, and the computational time of all the proposed non-learning-based components on the y-axis. Additional information on the computational cost of MVD would also make the paper more self-contained.\n\nAlthough I already lean towards acceptance, I would be extremely eager to further increase my score if these questions and the limitations were properly addressed.\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nI know that some limitations have been mentioned in the Supplementary materials, but they appear rather superficial. Every method has some limitations, and I would be interesting to hear the author’s opinion on some limitations of their proposed method. In the supplementary materials the main limitations are attributed to MVD, which is not the core contribution of this work. I would suggest being inspired by Section 2 of the paper checklist. Also, refer to Question 5 as a potential point of discussion.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 5, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 5, "CLARITY": 4, "IMPACT": 3, "ORIGINALITY": 4, "DATE": "2025-07-01"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThe paper introduces GOATex, a diffusion-based framework for 3D mesh texturing that addresses the challenge of generating realistic textures for both exterior and occluded interior surfaces. Existing methods struggle with interior texturing due to limited access to occluded geometry, often resulting in incomplete textures and visible seams. GOATex leverages ray-based visibility analysis to decompose the mesh into ordered layers, enabling progressive texturing from the outermost to innermost regions. Through extensive experiments, GOATex outperforms existing baselines, generating high-quality and seamless textures for both visible and occluded surfaces of untextured objects.\n\nSTRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES:\n**Strengths**\n1. The authors pose a thought-provoking question, namely, generating realistic textures for occluded surfaces of 3D meshes, and bring this issue to the forefront of academic scrutiny.\n2. Novel and effective Occlusion-Aware Approach. The proposed Occlusion-Aware Approach, termed GOATex, introduces a novel and effective paradigm for texturing 3D meshes, employing a ray-based and layer-by-layer strategy that progresses from the outermost to innermost surfaces.\n3. The comprehensive evaluation, including a user study, demonstrates the efficacy of this method in generating realistic textures for both visible and occluded surfaces\n\n**Weaknesses**\n1. The approach struggles to effectively handle complex 3D meshes comprising multiple layers.\n2. A notable limitation of the method is that certain occluded areas on interior surfaces are neglected, as exemplified by the back of chairs on the bus shown in Figure 2.\n3. The framework lacks a clear mechanism for adaptively adjusting the corresponding text prompt in response to varying hit levels.\n\nQUESTIONS:\nWhen dealing with an object that is not entirely closed, such as a vase with a small opening at the top, how should we assign the hit level? Specifically, does the inner bottom of this vase belong to Hit Level 1, while other inner surfaces belong to Hit Level 2? In such scenarios, a critical challenge arises: how to ensure that the texture of the inner bottom aligns with the textures of other inner surfaces that belong to Hit Level 2, thereby maintaining a consistent and coherent visual appearance?\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nAs elucidated in the Weaknesses section, GOATex may face significant difficulties when dealing with substantially more complex 3D meshes.", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 5, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "CLARITY": 3, "IMPACT": 3, "ORIGINALITY": 4, "DATE": "2025-07-01"}

{"IS_META_REVIEW": false, "comments": "SUMMARY:\nThis paper presents a diffusion-based method for texturing shapes that contain both exterior and interior surfaces. Prior work on diffusion-based shape texturing typically renders a camera view, making use of a depth conditioned multi-view diffusion model to generate uv-textures. This work points out that such a pipeline will generally render (and hence texture) only exterior surfaces, but will fail to texture the interior of a car or building shape. The key architectural innovation is to segment a 3D shape into an \"onion-layered\" collection of surfaces ordered from outside-in. Such segmented shapes can be used to generate segmented depth maps, which can then be combined with depth-conditioned multi-view diffusion models to generate outside-in ordered uv-texture maps (which are then be blended back to obtain a fully inside-out textured model).\n\nSTRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES:\nStrengths\n\n- The problem formulation is quite creative and the execution seems solid. The rendered visuals are simply fun to look at!\n- This paper includes a link to a github project page, which may or maynot be allowed under the submission guidelines. I personally found the visuals quite helpful.\n\nWeaknesses\n- It would be interesting to compare to NERF-like approaches that learn a full volumetric texture model rather than a uv-based texture model. Such texturing pipelines can naturally model interior surfaces simply by rendering an interior camera, or even a \"cut-away\" view such as those shown in the final visuals. Examples of such volumetric (and not uv-based) texturing approaches include FlashTex and Fantasia3D. Could such methods be more readily adapted to modeling interior surfaces?\n- Minor gripe: I find the term \"occlusion-aware texturing\" to be somewhat ill-defined, since occlusion is associated with a camera viewpoint but shapes are full 3D. One could use it in the sense of view-dependant (specular) materials, but there already exists a large body of work in this vain. I think the more proper term is texturing of models that allow for diverse camera viewpoints, including interior cameras and \"cut-away\" cameras.\n\nQUESTIONS:\nPlease answer the first \"weakness\" above, regarding volumetric texture models.\n\nLIMITATIONS:\nyes", "TITLE": "Official Review", "RECOMMENDATION": 5, "REVIEWER_CONFIDENCE": 4, "CLARITY": 4, "IMPACT": 3, "ORIGINALITY": 4, "DATE": "2025-07-06"}