Human creativity follows a perceptual process, moving from abstract ideas to finer details during creation. While 3D generative models have advanced dramatically, models specifically designed to assist human imagination in 3D creation -- particularly for detailing abstractions from coarse to fine -- have not been explored. We propose a framework that enables intuitive and interactive 3D shape generation by iteratively splitting bounding boxes to refine the set of bounding boxes. The main technical components of our framework are two generative models: the box-splitting generative model and the box-to-shape generative model. The first model, named BoxSplitGen, generates a collection of 3D part bounding boxes with varying granularity by iteratively splitting coarse bounding boxes. It utilizes part bounding boxes created through agglomerative merging and learns the reverse of the merging process -- the splitting sequences. The model consists of two main components: the first learns the categorical distribution of the box to be split, and the second learns the distribution of the two new boxes, given the set of boxes and the indication of which box to split. The second model, the box-to-shape generative model, is trained by leveraging the 3D shape priors learned by an existing 3D diffusion model while adapting the model to incorporate bounding box conditioning. In our experiments, we demonstrate that the box-splitting generative model outperforms token prediction models and the inpainting approach with an unconditional diffusion model. Also, we show that our box-to-shape model, based on a state-of-the-art 3D diffusion model, provides superior results compared to a previous model.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of our hierarchical bounding box splitting framework. On the left is a binary tree for 3D shape abstraction, where red-highlighted nodes bv are split into finer child nodes, with blue and green backgrounds showing split steps at s and s+1 . On the right, the framework performs pivot classification, samples two red-highlighted child boxes, and generates 3D shapes using our Box2Shape model.
Figure 3: Diagram of network architectures. (a) Child-Boxes Diffusion. (b) Box2Shape . Starting from a unit cube, we iteratively split boxes using Child-Boxes Diffusion to obtain the box condition with desired granularity, which then guides Box2Shape to generate aligned 3D shapes.
COV ↑
MMD ↓
1-NNA ↓
COV ↑
MMD ↓
1-NNA ↓
Pivot Selection
Models
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
Chair
Airplane
Random
Token Pred. Model
22.05
25.76
27.960
21.335
94.13
93.02
55.25
58.80
10.645
15.680
90.27
90.08
Uncond. Diffusion
29.70
30.97
18.784
18.128
88.68
87.93
63.82
68.21
7.207
12.953
88.50
87.90
Cond. Diffusion
32.84
33.97
16.896
16.910
85.28
83.43
77.75
77.38
6.842
12.599
86.35
85.64
Classifier
Token Pred. Model
27.41
30.87
24.615
20.235
91.39
90.19
66.87
70.41
8.185
13.870
87.16
86.49
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of shape abstraction generation with different pivot selection strategies. MMD-CD scores and MMD-EMD scores are scaled by 103 and 102 , respectively. The best results are highlighted in bold . The numbers are the averages across split levels s=5 and s=8 .
Models
COV ↑
MMD ↓
1-NNA ↓
Box Alignment
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
Box-CD ↓
Box-EMD ↓
TOV ↓
VIoU ↑
Spice-E [ 66 ]
38.33
40.93
14.762
15.308
87.09
85.98
0.043
0.255
2.44
0.27
Gated 3DS2V [ 89 ]
54.55
57.42
13.067
14.991
78.93
77.14
0.012
0.143
1.39
0.17
Box2Shape (Ours)
51.06
50.99
10.369
12.324
72.75
72.16
0.006
0.098
1.08
0.31
Table 2: Quantitative comparison of box-conditioned shape generation. MMD-CD scores and MMD-EMD scores are scaled by 103 and 102 , respectively. The best results are highlighted in bold .
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of shape abstraction generation. For each pair of columns, we query the ground truth shape and retrieve the closest generated boxes measured with chamfer distance. Our method demonstrates higher-fidelity boxes.
Figure 5: Gallery of our generated bounding boxes and their final generated 3D shapes by box-conditioned shape generation models. Each pair of columns shows the input bounding boxes (left) and their corresponding generated 3D shapes (right).
Figure A6 : Shape variations and editing guided by bounding boxes. The top row demonstrates shape variations with different granularity of the bounding boxes, while the bottom illustrates shape editing achieved by manipulating bounding boxes.
Dataset
Chair
Table
Tightness ↑
COV-EMD ↑
MMD-EMD ↓
1-NNA-EMD ↓
Tightness ↑
COV-EMD ↑
MMD-EMD ↓
1-NNA-EMD ↓
PartNet [ 51 ]
2.25
32.49
16.645
85.87
2.20
29.02
14.190
78.21
SMART [ 55 ]
1.61
33.97
16.910
83.43
1.78
30.58
15.132
79.22
Table A3 : Comparison of SMART [ 55 ] and PartNet [ 51 ] across different metrics for Chair and Table categories. Bold indicates the best for each column.
Class
Table
Chair
Couch
Airplane
Bench
Display
Rifle
Lamp
# of shapes
2,725
1,976
1,108
420
409
407
398
322
Avg. # of Boxes
6.96
9.54
5.37
11.46
8.92
3.98
8.05
7.46
Table A4 : Dataset statistics. We report the number of shapes and the average number of bounding boxes for each class.
COV ↑
MMD ↓
1-NNA ↓
COV ↑
MMD ↓
1-NNA ↓
Pivot Selection
Models
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
Chair
Airplane
Random
Token Prediction Model
22.05
25.76
27.960
21.335
94.13
93.02
55.25
58.80
10.645
15.680
90.27
90.08
Uncond. Diffusion
29.70
30.97
18.784
18.128
88.68
87.93
63.82
68.21
7.207
12.953
88.50
87.90
Cond. Diffusion (Ours)
32.84
33.97
16.896
16.910
85.28
83.43
77.75
77.38
6.842
12.599
86.35
85.64
Classifier
Token Prediction Model
27.41
30.87
24.615
20.235
91.39
90.19
66.87
70.41
8.185
13.870
87.16
86.49
Table A5 : Quantitative comparison of shape abstraction generation with different pivot selection strategies. MMD-CD scores and MMD-EMD scores are scaled by 103 and 102 , respectively. The best results are highlighted in bold . The numbers are the averages across split levels s=5 and s=8 .
COV ↑
MMD ↓
1-NNA ↓
COV ↑
MMD ↓
1-NNA ↓
s
Models
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
Chair
Airplane
5
Token Prediction Model
29.24
31.73
23.008
19.648
90.83
89.64
65.04
69.44
7.722
13.552
87.59
86.47
Uncond. Diff.
33.62
36.49
18.802
17.843
89.48
87.45
74.33
78.73
6.631
12.464
86.01
85.55
Ours
45.08
45.14
14.408
15.690
78.23
75.71
82.40
79.95
6.35
12.10
85.51
85.47
8
Token Prediction Model
25.57
30.00
26.224
20.817
91.95
90.75
68.70
71.39
8.647
14.186
86.72
86.51
Table A6 : Quantitative comparison of shape abstraction generation using the pivot classifier for pivot selection. Results are evaluated at split levels s =5 and s =8. MMD-CD scores and MMD-EMD scores are scaled by 103 and 102 , respectively. The best results are highlighted in bold .
COV ↑
MMD ↓
1-NNA ↓
COV ↑
MMD ↓
1-NNA ↓
s
Models
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
CD
EMD
Chair
Airplane
5
Token Prediction Model
23.84
27.89
25.074
20.215
93.74
92.26
55.50
57.21
9.049
14.620
90.62
90.20
Uncond. Diff.
29.30
30.81
19.471
18.489
88.75
87.97
64.30
67.73
7.236
13.011
87.84
88.17
Ours
31.30
32.65
17.09
17.10
85.51
84.60
79.22
78.00
6.69
12.51
85.60
85.72
8
Token Prediction Model
20.27
23.62
30.850
22.453
94.52
93.77
55.01
60.39
12.238
16.745
89.91
89.95
Table A7 : Quantitative comparison of shape abstraction generation with randomly selected pivots. Results are evaluated at s =5 and s =8. MMD-CD scores and MMD-EMD scores are scaled by 103 and 102 , respectively. The best results are highlighted in bold .
Figure A7 : The evolution of box splits by ours. In each abstraction, new generated boxes are marked in red, and the pivot to be split in the next split is in blue.
Figure A8 : Qualitative comparison of shape abstraction generation. For each pair of columns, we query the ground truth shape and retrieve the closest generated boxes measured with chamfer distance. Our method demonstrates higher-fidelity boxes.
Figure A9 : Qualitative comparison of shape abstraction generation. For each pair of columns, we query the ground truth shape and retrieve the closest generated boxes measured with chamfer distance. Our method demonstrates higher-fidelity boxes.
Figure A10 : Qualitative comparison of shape abstraction generation. For each pair of columns, we query the ground truth shape and retrieve the closest generated boxes measured with chamfer distance. Our method demonstrates higher-fidelity boxes.
Figure A11 : Gallery of our generated bounding boxes and their final decoded 3D shapes by box-conditioned shape generation network. Each pair of columns shows the input condition bounding box (left) and its corresponding decoded 3D shape (right).
Figure A12 : Gallery of our generated bounding boxes and their final decoded 3D shapes by box-conditioned shape generation network. Each pair of columns shows the input condition bounding box (left) and its corresponding decoded 3D shape (right).
Figure A13 : Gallery of our generated bounding boxes and their final decoded 3D shapes by box-conditioned shape generation network. Each pair of columns shows the input condition bounding box (left) and its corresponding decoded 3D shape (right).
Figure A14 : Gallery of our generated bounding boxes and their final decoded 3D shapes by box-conditioned shape generation network. Each pair of columns shows the input condition bounding box (left) and its corresponding decoded 3D shape (right).
Generating 3D assets with explicit parts requires two properties at once: geometric detail inside each part and structural coherence across the whole object. Recent image-conditioned 3D generation models adopt a structured 3D representation that anchors tokens to explicit spatial positions, capturing both properties, but their output remains a single fused mesh. We ask how a part-decomposed generation model can inherit both properties of these holistic priors, and answer with STRUCTPARTS, a framework whose core technical contribution is a dual-frame coordinate interleaving mechanism: each shape latent is interpreted under both a part-local and an object-global reference frame, and processed through a global-local inter-leaved transformer that simultaneously reuses the prior's geometric detail at the part scale and its structural coherence at the whole-object scale. As its structural input, STRUCTPARTS uses a segmented mesh scaffold, a coarse mesh paired with a face-level segmentation mask kept entirely within the prior's native 3D representation. With only lightweight finetuning, both intra-part detail and inter-part coherence emerge from the same pretrained weights. On PartObjaverse-Tiny, STRUCTPARTS matches or surpasses prior part-decomposed models at a fraction of their training cost, while naturally supporting part-mesh refinement and part-level editing.
Yiqun Zhao, Binbin Huang, Haobin Duan +2
The University of Hong Kong · Transengram · Tencent +1
Interactive 3D assets used in games and simulation are typically decomposed into specific semantic parts to support animation, physics, and scripted behaviors, yet most generative 3D models produce either monolithic meshes or arbitrary part decompositions that cannot be aligned with application-specific requirements. We present CubePart, a generative framework for open-vocabulary, part-controllable 3D mesh generation that exposes part structure as an explicit inference-time control signal. Given a global text prompt and a user-defined parts schema expressed as an open-ended list of part names, our method generates a set of meshes - one per schema element - that assemble into a coherent object while respecting the specified semantic structure. To enable this capability, we introduce a scalable data pipeline to construct a large open-vocabulary, part-labeled 3D dataset, along with a two-stage generative architecture that separates global shape synthesis from part-level decoding. We demonstrate that the resulting assets can be directly integrated into game engines and driven by animation and behavior scripts without manual post-processing. Project Page: https://cubepart.github.io/
Single-image 3D generation lies at the core of vision-to-graphics models in the real world. However, it remains a fundamental challenge to achieve reliable generalization across diverse semantic categories and highly variable structural complexity under sparse supervision. Existing approaches typically model objects in a monolithic manner or rely on a fixed number of parts, including recent part-aware models such as PartCrafter, which still require a labor-intensive user-specified part count. Such designs easily lead to overfitting, fragmented or missing structural components, and limited compositional generalization when encountering novel object layouts. To this end, this paper rethinks single-image 3D generation as learning an adaptive part-whole hierarchy in the flexible 3D latent space. We present a novel part-to-whole 3D generative world model that autonomously discovers latent structural slots by inferring soft and compositional masks directly from image tokens. Specifically, an adaptive slot-gating mechanism dynamically determines the slot-wise activation probabilities and smoothly consolidates redundant slots within different objects, ensuring that the emergent structure remains compact yet expressive across categories. Each distilled slot is then aligned to a learnable, class-agnostic prototype bank, enabling powerful cross-category shape sharing and denoising through universal geometric prototypes in the real world. Furthermore, a lightweight 3D denoiser is introduced to reconstruct geometry and appearance via unified diffusion objectives. Experiments show consistent gains in cross-category transfer and part-count extrapolation, and ablations confirm complementary benefits of the prototype bank for shape-prior sharing as well as slot-gating for structural adaptation.
Bi'an Du, Daizong Liu, Pufan Li +1
Institute for Math & AI, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China