Existing 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) editing methods primarily focus on appearance modification and often struggle to support flexible geometry editing while preserving structural integrity and scene-consistent appearance. To address this limitation, we present TRACE, a mesh-guided 3DGS editing framework that automatically aligns explicit 3D geometry with Gaussian scenes and decouples Geometric Anchoring from Appearance Harmonization. First, Multi-view 3D-Anchor Synthesis, trained on our MV-TRACE dataset for scene-coherent object addition and modification, generates geometrically aligned editing anchors, while Tangible Geometry Alignment (TGA) performs coarse-to-fine mesh-scene registration. Then, Contextual Video Masking (CVM) integrates projected 3D anchors into an autoregressive video diffusion pipeline, harmonizing their appearance with the surrounding scene while maintaining multi-view consistency. We evaluate TRACE on eight held-out scenes across six editing categories. TRACE completes each edit in approximately 10 minutes on a single NVIDIA RTX Pro 6000 GPU. Extensive experiments demonstrate consistent improvements over existing methods in editing versatility, structural integrity, semantic alignment, multi-view consistency, and visual quality.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Limitations of existing 3D editing approaches. (a) Weak 3D grounding leads to inconsistent or appearance-only edits. (b) Explicit geometry suffers from visual mismatch and inflexible alignment.
Figure 2: Representative TRACE edits. Top: sequential interactive edits on the “Stone Horse” scene, demonstrating part-level geometric manipulation. Bottom left: normalized performance across six edit types. Bottom right: multi-view examples of object addition, texture synthesis, style transfer, and replacement. Scenes come from IN2N, BlendedMVS, and Mip-NeRF 360.
Method
Consistency
Shape Edit
Global Edit
Auto Align
DGE
Extrap. Attn.
✗
✓
—
GaussCtrl
Depth Const.
✗
✓
—
TIP-Editor
SDS-based
✓
✗
✗
EditSplat
Iter. Update
✗
✓
—
GaussianEditor
Iter. Update
✓
✓
✗
Vip3dedit
Video/3D Prior
✗
✓
—
Table 1: Comparison of editing capabilities. Shape Edit means explicit 3D geometry modification; ✓ / ✗ denote claimed native support/unsupported, and "—" means Auto Align is inapplicable because no explicit asset is introduced.
Figure 3: Overview of TRACE. Given a 3DGS scene and an editing instruction, Stage I generates sparse edited anchors and aligns a generated or retrieved mesh to the scene with the TGA module. Stage II projects the aligned mesh anchor along rendered camera trajectories and uses CVM to repaint the object and nearby context before reconstructing the edited 3DGS.
Figure 4: Construction of MV-TRACE. The 100k pairs come from 96-view rendering of 25 training scenes, automatic filtering, and human-assisted asset alignment and color/contact refinement; all construction scenes are disjoint from evaluation.
Figure 5: Two-stage TGA alignment. Phase 1 initializes orientation and a coarse similarity transform; Phase 2 first performs 7-DoF coarse docking and then fixes rotation for fine scale/translation anchoring. The bottom row is a representative case of adding sunglasses to the man’s face.
Figure 6: Selected CVM and trajectory examples. Left: frames at three trajectory densities ρ (smaller is denser). Right: boundary crops before/after refinement.
Figure 7: Qualitative comparisons. Red boxes highlight baseline artifacts, while green boxes show TRACE’s more consistent geometry and cleaner local details. For clarity, we enlarge the second-view results of TRACE and selected competitive baselines.
Global/Local Style Editing
Partial/Whole Object Geometry Editing
Time
Method
Pub.
CLIP dir↑
CLIP sim↑
DINO ↑
Aes. ↑
CLIP dir↑
CLIP sim↑
DINO ↑
Aes. ↑
MEt3R ↓
Uni3D-T ↑
min ↓
DGE
ECCV’24
0.1082
0.2337
0.8693
5.5453
0.0228
0.2405
0.9005
6.0495
0.2095
0.0574
10 min
GaussCtrl
ECCV’24
0.0349
0.1955
0.8962
5.3021
0.0543
0.2297
0.8962
5.7307
0.1820
0.0042
20 min
TIP-Editor
SIG’24
0.1095
0.2398
0.8693
5.2792
0.0931
0.2234
0.8375
5.4916
0.2318
0.1531
45 min
GaussianEditor
CVPR’24
0.0737
0.2136
0.8774
5.6241
0.0623
0.2372
0.8568
5.2373
0.1847
0.1690
16 min
EditSplat
CVPR’25
0.0790
0.2328
0.8658
5.7483
0.0734
0.2270
0.9010
5.8659
0.1645
0.0283
18 min
Table 2: Unified evaluation on style and geometry editing. The evaluation covers local style change, global style change, insertion, removal, replacement, and deformation. MEt3R and Uni3D-T are reported for final reconstructed geometry-editing regions.
Figure 8: Pairwise user preference across six editing types. Results aggregate 540 blind comparison units as normalized weighted preference strengths. Tasks 1–6 denote local/global style, insertion, removal, replacement, and deformation.
(a) Ablation on 3D-Anchor Synthesis
Method
LLPIPS↓
PSNRbg↑
IoUalign↑
No LoRA
0.224
26.8
0.190
Multi-Angle LoRA
0.205
28.5
0.588
Triplet
0.198
24.2
0.240
Ours (3D-LoRA)
0.144
33.1
0.815
Table 3: Ablation studies of TRACE’s key components: 3D-Anchor synthesis, TGA alignment, and CVM refinement.
Figure 9: Comparison with direct video editing. Yellow marks subject synthesis and red marks background stability; TRACE better preserves 3D placement and scene details.
Figure 10: Multi-view editing ablation. View 1/2/3 are marked in red , yellow , and purple . No LoRA lacks 3D awareness, Multi-Angle LoRA suffers from inconsistent placement and background collapse, while 3D-LoRA preserves both object placement and scene background.
Recent advancements in text-guided 3D editing, particularly with 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS), have shown promise but still lag behind the flexibility of 2D editing tools. Existing methods face a critical trade-off between preserving multi-view consistency and allowing structural modifications. Image-based editors can also struggle to apply the intended edit to objects viewed from unusual angles. To address these limitations, we introduce VidEdit3D, a framework that reformulates 3D scene editing as a trajectory-based video editing task. By drawing a parallel between camera movement in static 3D scenes and temporal dynamics in video, we leverage the robust spatiotemporal priors of pre-trained Video Diffusion Models (VDMs) to encourage semantic and structural coherence across views. Specifically, we propose Trajectory-Guided Rendering (TGR) to select informative keyframes and construct smooth video clips aligned with VDM input requirements. To propagate edits from an anchor view to these clips, we develop Flow-Aligned Video Editing (FAVE), a training-free framework incorporating an Editing Consistency Guidance (ECG) mechanism. ECG contrasts source and edited image conditions at a shared latent state, using scheduled source-image amplification to strengthen adherence to the edited reference while maintaining original scene context. Finally, we introduce Region-Selective 3DGS Refinement (RS-GS) to strictly confine geometric and appearance updates to target primitives, reducing background attribute leakage. Experiments demonstrate stronger instruction alignment and better multi-view consistency than the baselines.
Yanming Yang, Chenxi Song, Tong Zhao +5
Westlake University · University of Leeds · Nanyang Technological University +1
Text-driven 3D scene editing with 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) typically applies a 2D diffusion editor to views rendered from fixed training cameras, limiting both the spatial coverage of edits and the user's freedom to target specific objects in complex scenes. We present LB-Edit, a framework that addresses two coupled problems: where to place editing cameras for localized edits, and how to make per-view edits agree with one another so that the 3D scene remains consistent after fine-tuning. First, Attention-Guided Editing Camera Placement (ACP) probes the diffusion model's self- and cross-attention at multiple candidate camera distances to find where attention is well-contained in the region of interest, then places a compact, geometrically diverse editing camera set at that attention-optimal distance. Second, Multi-view Attention Alignment (MAA) steers the editor toward the same edit across views along two axes: it aligns appearance by sharing self-attention features via token-level correspondence, and aligns spatial location by lifting cross-attention maps onto the 3D Gaussians as a shared 3D attention field, suppressing both appearance and spatial drift. Experiments on multi-object and single-object scenes show that our method achieves the highest user preference in instruction fidelity, multi-view consistency, and editing locality, using as few as 5 editing views and reducing latency by up to 7x over existing methods.
Language-driven 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) editing provides a more convenient approach for modifying complex scenes in VR/AR. Standard pipelines typically adopt a two-stage strategy: first editing multiple 2D views, and then optimizing the 3D representation to match these edited observations. Existing methods mainly improve view consistency through multi-view feature fusion, attention filtering, or iterative recalibration. However, they fail to explicitly address a more fundamental issue: the semantic correspondence between edited 2D evidence and 3D Gaussians. To tackle this problem, we propose TransSplat, which formulates language-driven 3DGS editing as a multi-view unbalanced semantic transport problem. Specifically, our method establishes correspondences between visible Gaussians and view-specific editing prototypes, thereby explicitly characterizing the semantic relationship between edited 2D evidence and 3D Gaussians. It further recovers a cross-view shared canonical 3D edit field to guide unified 3D appearance updates. In addition, we use transport residuals to suppress erroneous edits in non-target regions, mitigating edit leakage and improving local control precision. Qualitative and quantitative results show that, compared with existing 3D editing methods centered on enhancing view consistency, TransSplat achieves superior performance in local editing accuracy and structural consistency.
Yanhui Chen, Jiahong Li, Jingchao Wang +3
Guangdong University of Technology · Peking University