Interp3D: Correspondence-aware Interpolation for Generative Textured 3D Morphing
Xiaolu Liu, Yicong Li, Qiyuan He, Jiayin Zhu, Wei Ji, Angela Yao, Jianke Zhu

TL;DR
Interp3D introduces a training-free framework for smooth, texture-aware 3D morphing that maintains geometric and appearance consistency, advancing 3D content creation and animation.
Contribution
It proposes a novel, training-free method combining generative priors and progressive alignment for textured 3D morphing, addressing limitations of existing shape-only or 2D-based approaches.
Findings
Outperforms previous methods in fidelity and smoothness
Demonstrates robustness across graded difficulty levels
Validated by quantitative metrics and human studies
Abstract
Textured 3D morphing seeks to generate smooth and plausible transitions between two 3D assets, preserving both structural coherence and fine-grained appearance. This ability is crucial not only for advancing 3D generation research but also for practical applications in animation, editing, and digital content creation. Existing approaches either operate directly on geometry, limiting them to shape-only morphing while neglecting textures, or extend 2D interpolation strategies into 3D, which often causes semantic ambiguity, structural misalignment, and texture blurring. These challenges underscore the necessity to jointly preserve geometric consistency, texture alignment, and robustness throughout the transition process. To address this, we propose Interp3D, a novel training-free framework for textured 3D morphing. It harnesses generative priors and adopts a progressive alignment principle…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
1. The paper clearly identifies a specific technical problem (artifacts in 3D morphing) and proposes a logical, multi-stage framework that effectively solves it. 2. The training-free nature is a significant practical advantage, showing how to guide a generative prior using feature-space manipulation. 3. The evaluation is comprehensive, using quantitative metrics (FID, PPL, LPIPS) and a user study (Table 2) to prove its superiority over baselines. 4. The creation of Interp3DData is a useful, a
1. The primary weakness is the limited scope and perceived significance of the task itself. 3D morphing is a relatively niche problem. The proposed solution, while effective, feels more like a clever engineering trick or application built on top of TRELLIS, rather than a novel, generalizable research contribution. The work is highly incremental. 2. The method seems tightly coupled to the TRELLIS model's SLAT representation. It's unclear if this principle generalizes to other 3D models. 3. The
The paper presents a clear and detailed description of the Interp3D framework, including the three stages of alignment and the specific techniques used at each stage. The pseudocode provided in the appendix further enhances the clarity of the implementation. The creation of the Interp3DData dataset provides a valuable resource for the research community. The method is shown to be robust across a wide range of source–target pairs, including those with geometric and textural differences.
Current metrics (FID, PPL, LPIPS) focus on visual quality but lack assessment of semantic coherence and structural fidelity. The method heavily relies on attention interpolation of an existing method Trellis3D, which lacks novelty. It's rather than revealing the findings of Trellis3D.
1. The method cleanly exploits TRELLIS to realize training-free 3D morphing, turning a strong generative prior into a controllable morph pipeline. 2. A dedicated benchmark (Interp3DData) and quantitative comparisons demonstrate that Interp3D surpasses prior SOTA on multiple metrics. 3. The paper is clearly structured. The presentation is clear and easy to follow. 4. Results are visually compelling—fewer geometric failures and significantly less texture blur than baselines. 5. User study incl
Actually, I do not think this paper has an obvious weakness. My concern is about the manual hyperparameter sensitivity: The pipeline exposes numerous hand-tuned knobs (e.g., grid patch size and step-wise schedules in SLAT-Guided Structure Interpolation). It is unclear how robust these settings are across diverse source–target pairs or whether per-pair tuning is required.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
Topics3D Shape Modeling and Analysis · Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis · Face recognition and analysis
