The dominant paradigm for high-fidelity 3D generation relies on a VAE-Diffusion pipeline, where the VAE's reconstruction capability sets a firm upper bound on generation quality. A fundamental challenge limiting existing VAEs is the representation mismatch between ground-truth meshes and network predictions: GT meshes have arbitrary, variable topology, while VAEs typically predict fixed-structure implicit fields (\eg, SDF on regular grids). This inherent misalignment prevents establishing explicit mesh-level correspondences, forcing prior work to rely on indirect supervision signals such as SDF or rendering losses. Consequently, fine geometric details, particularly sharp features, are poorly preserved during reconstruction. To address this, we introduce TopoMesh, a sparse voxel-based VAE that unifies both GT and predicted meshes under a shared Dual Marching Cubes (DMC) topological framework. Specifically, we convert arbitrary input meshes into DMC-compliant representations via a remeshing algorithm that preserves sharp edges using an L∞ distance metric. Our decoder outputs meshes in the same DMC format, ensuring that both predicted and target meshes share identical topological structures. This establishes explicit correspondences at the vertex and face level, allowing us to derive explicit mesh-level supervision signals for topology, vertex positions, and face orientations with clear gradients. Our sparse VAE architecture employs this unified framework and is trained with Teacher Forcing and progressive resolution training for stable and efficient convergence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TopoMesh significantly outperforms existing VAEs in reconstruction fidelity, achieving superior preservation of sharp features and geometric details.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: TopoMesh comprises two core modules. Topo-Remesh converts imperfect, real-world meshes into clean, DMC-compliant representations while preserving sharp features. Topo-VAE takes vertices with normals as input and reconstructs the mesh in the same DMC format. With topological unification, we apply direct supervision on mesh attributes: topology, vertex positions, and face orientations.
Figure 3: (a) Compression of the sparse attention map. (b) A single, shared query aggregates all keys from the same voxel to form the output feature of this voxel.
Figure 4: Illustration of explicit mesh-level loss.
Figure 5: (a) Angle-preserving of L ∞ metric. (b) 2D illustration of L ∞ distance. P lies on the isosurface that preserves angles.
Figure 6: Remesh pipeline and execution time.
Figure 7: Visual comparison of remeshing. Our method produces clean meshes with sharp features. ∗ means a re-implementation version.
Method
Device
Thingi10K [ 65 ]
Objaverse [ 9 ]
Efficiency
CD ↓
F1 ↑
ANC ↑
CD ↓
F1 ↑
ANC ↑
Time ↓
Size ↓
Mesh2SDF [ 48 ]
CPU
1.980
0.932
0.955
3.349
0.931
0.829
552.3
66.5
ManifoldPlus [ 15 ]
CPU
1.347
0.976
0.981
0.620
0.991
0.780
79.4
92.7
Dora [ 2 ]
GPU
1.492
0.972
0.970
1.057
0.987
0.961
116.3
112.6
Sparc3D [ 23 ]
GPU
1.436
0.978
0.975
2.864
0.970
0.929
175.9
121.6
Ours
GPU
1.479
0.978
0.984
0.964
0.988
0.964
18.5
28.7
Table 1: Quantitative result of remeshing. Our method preserves fine details with the highest efficiency. CD is multiplied by 105 .
Figure 8: Visual comparison of VAE reconstruction. Our method better preserves sharp features and fine details.
Method
#Latent
#Dim
Topo-Bench
Dora-Bench [ 2 ]
CD ↓
F1 ↑
F1-S ↑
ANC ↑
CD ↓
F1 ↑
F1-S ↑
ANC ↑
TripoSG [ 22 ]
4096
64
2.658
0.893
0.715
0.965
1.697
0.959
0.717
0.976
Dora [ 2 ]
4096
64
2.167
0.905
0.754
0.968
1.814
0.964
0.768
0.977
Hunyuan3D-2.1 [ 45 ]
4096
64
2.538
0.888
0.767
0.965
1.606
0.954
0.770
0.980
Trellis [ 55 ]
12832
8
18.616
0.583
0.308
0.893
14.716
0.715
0.279
0.915
Direct3D-S2 [ 54 ]
76386
16
2.713
0.813
0.694
0.920
2.313
0.881
0.819
0.968
Table 2: Quantitative result of VAE. All methods except Trellis produce meshes at 10243 resolution. Our method outperforms other methods in preserving sharp features. CD is multiplied by 105 .
Figure 9: Dihedral angle distributions from different remeshing methods.
Figure 10: Comparison of direct mesh-level supervision versus rendering-based supervision.
Method
CD ↓
F1 ↑
F1-S ↑
ANC ↑
render loss
1.731
0.776
0.711
0.932
mesh-level loss
0.150
0.975
0.991
0.999
32res
1.812
0.933
0.790
0.968
64res
1.693
0.940
0.869
0.983
128res
1.126
0.973
0.915
0.995
Table 3: Quantitative results of ablations.
Method
Hunyuan3D-2.1 [ 45 ]
Trellis [ 55 ]
Direct3D-S2 [ 54 ]
Ours
FID ↓
59.43
59.61
45.33
42.48
KID ( ×103 ) ↓
5.97
6.03
5.47
4.63
Table 4: Quantitative generation results on Toys4K.
Figure 11: Visual Comparisons of image-to-3D generation.
Autoencoders learn compressed representations by encoding data into latent codes and decoding them for reconstruction, generation, denoising, or anomaly detection.