PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Cross-domain Adaptation for Few-shot 3D Shape Generation

JingYuan Zhu, Huimin Ma, Jiansheng Chen, Jian Yuan

generative modelsFew-shot3D shape generationDomain adaptation
24.30100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
31.70100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.37)
15.10100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We first explore few-shot 3D shape generation and achieve high-quality and diverse results.

Abstract

Realistic and diverse 3D shape generation is helpful for a wide variety of applications such as virtual reality, gaming, and animation. Modern generative models learn from large-scale datasets and generate new samples following similar distributions. However, when training data is limited, deep neural generative networks overfit and tend to replicate training samples. Prior works focus on few-shot image generation to produce high-quality and diverse results using a few target images. Unfortunately, abundant 3D shape data is typically hard to obtain as well. In this work, we make the first attempt to realize few-shot 3D shape generation by adapting generative models pre-trained on large source domains to target domains. To relieve overfitting and keep considerable diversity, we propose to maintain the probability distributions of the pairwise relative distances between adapted samples at feature-level and shape-level during domain adaptation. Our approach only needs the silhouettes of few-shot target samples as training data to learn target geometry distributions and achieve generated shapes with diverse topology and textures. Moreover, we introduce several metrics to evaluate generation quality and diversity. The effectiveness of our approach is demonstrated qualitatively and quantitatively under a series of few-shot 3D shape adaptation setups.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 36 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 38% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)