Organizations: Beihang University, China · Beihang University, China and Beijing Key Laboratory of Intelligent Creative Content Generation and Immersive Experience, China · Beihang University, China and VAST, China
Instruction-guided 3D editing is essential for interactive content creation, yet it faces a significant bottleneck: the severe scarcity of high-quality paired training data. Existing approaches attempt to bypass this by either relying on slow test-time optimization or training on pseudo-pairs constructed via complex pipelines, which often introduce structural drift and geometric artifacts. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that learns feed-forward 3D editing without paired 3D supervision via Generative Prior Distillation. Instead of relying on ground-truth 3D pairs, our core idea is to distill visual, semantic, and geometric knowledge from powerful foundation models directly into a 3D editing model. Specifically, through a differentiable rendering pipeline, we supervise the 3D representation using two complementary signals: a 2D visual prior from an image editing model at the main editing view, and a semantic prior from a Vision-Language Model at novel views to ensure strict instruction following and source identity preservation. Crucially, to address the geometric collapse and multi-view inconsistencies inherent in 2D projection supervision, we introduce a 3D-aware Distribution Matching regularization. Acting as a geometric prior, this term operates in the 3D latent space, constraining the edited output to remain within the manifold of realistic 3D assets defined by a pretrained image to 3D teacher model. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves superior instruction fidelity and cross-view consistency, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art baselines. Our project is available at: https://github.com/thiamine128/PriorEdit3D.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Our method learns feed-forward 3D editing without paired 3D supervision by distilling generative priors from foundation models, achieving high-fidelity instruction-guided editing with cross-view consistency.
Paradigm
Representative Methods
Inv.- free
Native 3D
No Paired 3D Data
Prior Distill.
Mask- free
Optimization
Instruct-N2N, Vox-E
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
2D Lifting
Tailor3D, EditP23
✓
✗
✓
✗
✓
Training-free
VoxHammer, Nano3D
✗
✓
✓
✗
✗
Supervised
3DEditFormer, ShapeUP
✓
✓
✗
✗
✓
Unpaired Distillation
PriorEdit3D (Ours)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Table 1. Comparison of SOTA 3D editing paradigms. Our framework is the first unpaired approach to achieve inversion-free and mask-free editing in native 3D space. This is accomplished by distilling generative priors rather than relying on pseudo-pairs.
Figure 2. Automated dataset pipeline. Objaverse objects are rendered, edited via Gemini3-Flash instructions and Qwen-Image-Edit, and filtered using Qwen3-VL 32B and SSIM.
Figure 3. Training framework of PriorEdit3D. Given a source 3D latent and an instruction-conditioned edited image, the editor predicts an edited UniLat3D latent, which is rendered and optimized with pixel-level 2D supervision, VLM-based semantic/view feedback, and DMD-based 3D prior regularization.
Figure 4. Qualitative comparison between our method and SOTA methods, including EditP23 ( Bar-On et al., 2025 ) , Instant3DiT ( Barda et al., 2025 ) , 3DEditFormer ( Xia et al., 2026 ) , VoxHammer ( Li et al., 2026 ) , and Nano3D ( Ye et al., 2026 ) .
Edited Image Alignment
Overall 3D Quality
Condition Alignment
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
FVD ↓
CLIP-T ↑
LLM-Id (%) ↑
LLM-Inst (%) ↑
Runtime
PriorEdit3D
EditP23 ( Bar-On et al., 2025 )
16.74
0.87
0.19
184.51
286.72
0.29
82.52
64.71
18 s
Instant3DiT ( Barda et al., 2025 )
15.45
0.86
0.20
229.47
328.24
0.23
40.09
25.22
20 s
3DEditFormer ( Xia et al., 2026 )
18.89
0.89
0.15
167.85
220.91
0.28
86.31
53.39
74 s
VoxHammer ( Li et al., 2026 )
16.87
0.87
0.17
179.22
359.50
0.27
76.54
51.74
133 s
Table 2. Main quantitative comparison across different evaluation datasets. We report edited-image alignment, overall 3D quality, condition alignment, and runtime per edit on a single A100 GPU.
Figure 5. Qualitative results on ABO dataset.
Figure 6. Qualitative results on GSO dataset.
Figure 7. Qualitative ablation results. We compare our full method with variants w/o VLM, w/o DMD, w/o Pixel, w/o both VLM and DMD, and direct conditional generation (UniLat3D). Red circles highlight failures: removing VLM degrades non-edited views; removing DMD causes geometric inconsistencies; removing pixel supervision weakens edit fidelity; removing both VLM and DMD causes severe collapse; and UniLat3D fails to preserve source geometry. Our full model ensures accurate edits and 3D consistency.
Loss Terms
Edited Image Align
Overall 3D Quality
Condition Alignment
Pixel
DMD
VLM
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
FVD ↓
CLIP-T ↑
LLM-Id (%) ↑
LLM-Inst (%) ↑
✓
✗
✗
24.00
0.94
0.12
78.90
307.58
0.30
88.35
80.38
✓
✗
✓
23.21
0.93
0.12
75.13
211.08
0.31
90.10
86.92
✓
✓
✗
24.45
0.94
0.12
73.67
193.44
0.30
90.92
83.46
✗
✓
✓
20.99
0.91
0.14
94.11
197.79
0.30
88.29
86.92
✓
✓
✓
24.37
0.94
0.12
71.96
195.77
0.31
93.13
86.92
Table 3. Ablation study of loss terms. We compare pixel reconstruction loss, VLM loss, DMD loss, and additional leave-one-out ablations.
VLM Backbone
Edited Image Align
Overall 3D Quality
Condition Alignment
PSNR (M) ↑
SSIM (M) ↑
LPIPS (M) ↓
FID ↓
FVD ↓
CLIP-T ↑
LLM-Id (0–100) ↑
LLM-Inst (%) ↑
Qwen3-VL-2B
24.26
0.94
0.12
74.34
195.90
0.30
91.50
85.77
Qwen3-VL-4B
24.37
0.94
0.12
71.96
195.77
0.31
93.13
86.92
Table 4. Impact of VLM backbone on 3D editing performance.
Prompt Strategy
Edited Image Align
Overall 3D Quality
Condition Alignment
PSNR (M) ↑
SSIM (M) ↑
LPIPS (M) ↓
FID ↓
FVD ↓
CLIP-T ↑
LLM-Id (0–100) ↑
LLM-Inst (%) ↑
Edit fidelity only
23.10
0.93
0.12
80.28
211.90
0.31
90.21
83.85
Identity only
24.33
0.94
0.12
71.77
187.01
0.30
91.94
82.31
Full
24.37
0.94
0.12
71.96
195.77
0.31
93.13
86.92
Table 5. Impact of VLM prompt strategy on 3D editing performance.
Figure 13
Figure 10. Representative failure cases.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 11. More results.
Figure 12. Qualitative results with samples in Edit3D-Bench.
Figure 17
Component
Parameter
Value
Model architecture
Denoiser
Model
SparseStructureFlowModel
Auxiliary model
Model
SparseStructureFlowModel; architecture identical to the denoiser
Both
Sparse resolution; patch size
16; 1
Both
Input/output channels
32 / 32
Both
Model/conditioning channels
1280 / 1280
Appendix
Table 6. Detailed model and training configuration used in our experiments.
Setting
Forward
Backward
Peak Memory
Fake Model (UniLat3D)
6.498 s
1.061 s
–
Pixel
7.782 s
1.246 s
38 GB
Pixel + DMD
73.006 s
11.730 s
43 GB
Pixel + DMD + VLM
73.252 s
11.878 s
59 GB
Inference
7 s
–
13 GB
Appendix
Table 7. Training-time computational cost and peak GPU memory under different supervision settings.
3D editing is a fundamental capability for scalable 3D content creation. While image editing has rapidly evolved toward large-scale feedforward generative paradigms, 3D AI generation remains dominated by training-free editing pipelines. A central challenge of feedforward 3D editing lies in the lack of high-quality paired supervision. Editable 3D assets require simultaneous preservation of geometry, multi-view consistency, structural coherence, and localized edit controllability. Existing 3D editing datasets often rely on independently generated assets, image-mediated reconstruction or narrow edit taxonomies, leading to inaccurate localization, weak preservation, blurred edit boundaries, and limited semantic consistency. In this work, we introduce a new perspective: scalable feedforward 3D editing should be learned from semantic-part transformations. Based on this insight, we propose Pxform, a high-quality 3D editing dataset with over 100K consistent before/after editing pairs across seven edit types. Instead of treating objects as unstructured shapes, our pipeline grounds edits directly in semantic 3D parts. Built upon Pxform, we further propose PartFlow, a feedforward 3D editing network that injects source-aware latent control into pretrained 3D generative priors. PartFlow introduces mask-aware velocity preservation and render-space consistency supervision to jointly improve edit fidelity and source preservation, while requiring no 3D edit mask during inference. Extensive experiments demonstrate that high-quality semantic-part supervision substantially improves scalable 3D editing, enabling PartFlow to achieve state-of-the-art performance on both geometric and appearance editing benchmarks.
Text-guided 3D editing aims to modify existing 3D assets using natural-language instructions. Current methods struggle to jointly understand complex prompts, automatically localize edits in 3D, and preserve unedited content. We introduce Vinedresser3D, an agentic framework for high-quality text-guided 3D editing that operates directly in the latent space of a native 3D generative model. Given a 3D asset and an editing prompt, Vinedresser3D uses a multimodal large language model to infer rich descriptions of the original asset, identify the edit region and edit type (addition, modification, deletion), and generate decomposed structural and appearance-level text guidance. The agent then selects an informative view and applies an image editing model to obtain visual guidance. Finally, an inversion-based rectified-flow inpainting pipeline with an interleaved sampling module performs editing in the 3D latent space, enforcing prompt alignment while maintaining 3D coherence and unedited regions. Experiments on diverse 3D edits demonstrate that Vinedresser3D outperforms prior baselines in both automatic metrics and human preference studies, while enabling precise, coherent, and mask-free 3D editing.
Yankuan Chi, Xiang Li, Zixuan Huang +1
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Most instruction-driven 3D editing methods rely on 2D models to guide the explicit and iterative optimization of 3D representations. This paradigm, however, suffers from two primary drawbacks. First, it lacks a universal design of different 3D editing tasks because the explicit manipulation of 3D geometry necessitates task-dependent rules, e.g., 3D appearance editing demands inherent source 3D geometry, while 3D removal alters source geometry. Second, the iterative optimization process is highly time-consuming, often requiring thousands of invocations of 2D/3D updating. We present Omni-3DEdit, a unified, learning-based model that generalizes various 3D editing tasks implicitly. One key challenge to achieve our goal is the scarcity of paired source-edited multi-view assets for training. To address this issue, we construct a data pipeline, synthesizing a relatively rich number of high-quality paired multi-view editing samples. Subsequently, we adapt the pre-trained generative model SEVA as our backbone by concatenating source view latents along with conditional tokens in sequence space. A dual-stream LoRA module is proposed to disentangle different view cues, largely enhancing our model's representational learning capability. As a learning-based model, our model is free of the time-consuming online optimization, and it can complete various 3D editing tasks in one forward pass, reducing the inference time from tens of minutes to approximately two minutes. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of Omni-3DEdit.