InstructMesh: Selective Refinement of Generative 3D Models for Fabrication
Authors: Faraz Faruqi, Ahmed Katary, Demircan Tas, Theresa Hradilak, Ning Zhang, Jiaji Li, Fabian Manhardt, Martin Nisser, Vrushank Phadnis, Ruofei Du, Federico Tombari, Megan Hofmann, Stefanie Mueller
Organizations: MIT CSAIL Cambridge, MA, USA · Google Sunnyvale, CA, USA · Google Munich, Germany · University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA · Google Mountain View, CA, USA · Google XR San Francisco, CA, USA · Google Zurich, Switzerland · Khoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern University Boston, MA, USA
Recent advances in generative AI allow users to create 3D models from text or images. However, these models prioritize visual plausibility over geometric accuracy, often generating results with flaws that compromise their intended use post-fabrication. We present InstructMesh, an interactive post-generation refinement tool that enables selective repair of generative 3D models through region selection and targeted operations, such as opening or sealing voids, or adjusting local thickness. Users can invoke edit operations via natural language prompts or slider controls. By operating directly on the intermediate latent representation, InstructMesh allows users to apply robust geometric corrections without requiring expert modeling skills. To inform our design, we first analyze common fabrication-related failure modes in outputs from state-of-the-art generative tools. We then conduct two user studies, demonstrating that novices can identify and perform fabrication-relevant repairs on generative outputs using InstructMesh, and revealing user preference for hybrid interfaces that combine slider controls with natural language input.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. InstructMesh enables fabrication-relevant refinement of generative 3D models through selective editing. a) A user provides an initial prompt. b) The system generates a 3D model, but may include fabrication-related flaws (e.g., a sealed lid). c) The user selects the problematic region and provides a descriptive edit prompt. d) InstructMesh applies an edit operation in the latent-space to remove the lid while preserving other regions and regenerates the model. e) The final model is fabricated as a functional mug.
Flaw Category
Description
Models Affected
Missing Openings
Absence of essential through-holes, ventilation gaps, volumes to contain liquids or support airflow.
48.6%
Fused Joints
Components meant to rotate or articulate (e.g., hinges, pivots, ball joints, axles) are fused, preventing intended motion.
13.5%
Broken or Missing Bridges
Crucial geometric connections between parts are missing, leaving the structure fragmented or unsupported.
10.8%
Extraneous Artifacts
Unintended bumps, extensions, or disconnected mesh elements.
65.8%
Fused / Duplicated Features
Features are erroneously duplicated, stacked, or fused together, often due to generative ambiguity.
27%
Hollowing Errors
Solid elements are mistakenly hollowed or vice versa.
36.9%
Table 1. Taxonomy of Fabrication-Relevant Geometric Flaws in 3D Model Reconstructions. Based on 120 most popular 3D models on 3D model website Thingiverse.
Figure 2. Descriptive examples of flaws found in our formative study. Models were sourced from Thingiverse, reconstructed with 3D generative model Trellis ( Xiang et al., 2024 ) using their image as input, and evaluated manually for geometric functionality errors by reviewers.
Figure 3. InstructMesh System Overview. (a) The user provides a text or image prompt. (b) The model is encoded into a latent voxel representation and (c) decoded into a textured mesh. (d) The user inspects the mesh for flaws; if none, the model proceeds to (g) fabrication. Otherwise, the user highlights a region and specifies an edit. (e) The latent operation is applied and previewed. (f) Once confirmed, the edited latents are decoded into a refined model.
Figure 4. The InstructMesh web interface. (a) Users enter a text or image prompt. (b) The generated mesh is inspected for flaws. (c) Users paint the problematic region. (d) The edit is specified via natural language or direct selection. (e) A preview is shown for confirmation. (f) The refined model is generated.
Figure 5. Preview visualizations of canonical operations. Top: a subtractive edit (“make a hole”) removes the sealed lid. Bottom: an additive edit (“connect these parts”) generates a handle. Red regions indicate subtractive changes; green indicates additive. Previews let users verify edits on the latent representation before triggering regeneration.
Figure 6. Canonical operations on voxel representations. User highlights (pink) are mapped to regions in the latent voxel grid. Additive operations (left) grow occupancy via extrusion, expansion, or filling. Subtractive operations (right) reduce occupancy via trimming, erosion, or flattening. The modified grid is decoded to produce the refined model.
Figure 7. Success rates of canonical operations in resolving fabrication-relevant geometric flaws. This evaluation was conducted on 80% of flaw instances from our annotated dataset. For each flaw, a predefined canonical operation was applied through region selection and LLM-guided latent editing.
Figure 8. Overview of the five models used in our user study (M1–M5). (a) Original model. (b) Flawed version from a generative model. (c) Fabrication-related flaws highlighted in pink.
Figure 9. Flaw Identification Performance. (a) Precision and recall of flaw detection across five generated 3D models (M1–M5). (b) Average identification accuracy (left axis) and number of flaw instances (right axis) for each flaw type.
Figure 10. Repair Time and Effort. (a) Mean repair time and number of flaws per model, indicating that models with more flaws required longer repair times. (b) Mean repair time by flaw type. Simpler flaws like topological errors and fused features were repaired faster, while truncated features and missing openings took longer.
Figure 11. Repair Success by Flaw Type. Participants successfully repaired most flaw types, with success rates exceeding 80% for all categories.
Figure 12. Likert results comparing LLM and slider interfaces. (a,c) LLM rated easier for specifying edits. (b,d) Sliders scored higher on accuracy and control. (e) LLMs required less effort. (f) Previews rated very highly across both conditions.
Figure 13. Applications of InstructMesh across domains. (a) Dragon mug with lid removed. (b) A functional whistle with acoustic chambers added. (c) Denim-aesthetic knee brace with strap openings added. (d) Butterfly eyeglasses with hollowed lenses and connected temples. (e) Bristle bot enclosure with electronics cavity. (f) Octopus-inspired liquids dispenser with added fluid channels.
While generative AI has unlocked new opportunities for 3D content creation, current workflows often rely on multiple regenerations, which provides limited control and unpredictable outcomes. We present Compos3D, a system that introduces a compositional workflow for generative 3D modeling through remixing. Instead of repeatedly regenerating models, users generate multiple candidates from text or image prompts, select parts of interest via 2D image regions or 3D mesh segments, and assemble them into a coherent design. The system synthesizes these compositions into a refined 3D model, preserving high-level intent while resolving low-level geometry. To evaluate this approach, we conducted a controlled user study comparing remixing and regeneration workflows across both 2D and 3D modalities. Results show that the remixing workflow provides participants with greater creative control, stronger alignment with their intent, and higher satisfaction. We conclude with design recommendations for future AI-assisted 3D modeling workflows.
Faraz Faruqi, Sean J. Liu, George Fitzmaurice +1
Autodesk Research Boston, MA, USA · Autodesk Research San Francisco, California, USA · Autodesk Research Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Native 3D generators now recover impressive mesh geometry from a single image. However, a dense mesh stays soft where a machined object should be sharp, it carries no part decomposition, and it exposes no parameter a user could edit. To address this, we explore the paradigm of 3D shape as code, leveraging and scaling the coding ability of an LLM for 3D modeling. We introduce Procedura, a novel 3D modeling agent framework that writes an object as a procedural assembly, a parametric program whose named parts are joined by typed, machine-checkable mates. From a text prompt, the agent plans the object as an assembly graph and writes the program part by part, solving each placement from the mated frames rather than guessing it, and admitting a part only once compile, mate, and connectivity checks pass. A decoupled vision critic then refines the assembly one diagnosed fix at a time. Moreover, the same graph carries per-part materials and a simulator-validated articulation. We evaluate on P3D-Bench under its assembly judge, and with the same judge on MechBench-36, our hard-surface benchmark. On both, Procedura outperforms state-of-the-art native 3D generators and every prior 3D-code agent on judged quality, produces the sharpest edges of any method we evaluate, and is the only one whose output is an editable, part-structured program.
We consider the problem of regenerating 3D objects from 2D images and initial 3D shapes. Most 3D generators operate in a one-shot fashion, converting text or images to a 3D object with limited controllability. We introduce instead MeshReGen, a 3D regenerator that is conditioned on an initial 3D shape. This conceptually simple formulation allows us to support numerous useful tasks, including 3D enhancement, reconstruction, and editing. MeshReGen uses a new conditioning mechanism based on VecSet, which allows the regenerator to update or improve the input geometry with consistent fine-grained details. MeshReGen learns a widely applicable regeneration prior from off-the-shelf 3D datasets via self-supervised pretext tasks and augmentations, without additional annotations. We evaluate both the geometric consistency and fine-grained quality of MeshReGen, achieving state-of-the-art performance in controllable 3D generation across several tasks.
Geon Yeong Park, Roman Shapovalov, Rakesh Ranjan +3
KAIST · ⋆Work done during an internship at Meta Reality Labs. · Meta Reality Labs