3DMorph: Single-Image-Guided Local 3D Shape Editing and Morphing

Despite recent progress in 3D generation, intuitive editing of existing shapes remains limited. Unlike images, which benefit from well-established inpainting tools, general 3D objects such as meshes still lack simple and effective methods for local shape editing. Existing approaches are often global, domain-specific, require complex user interaction, or focus on appearance (color and texture) rather than geometry. We introduce 3DMorph, a training-free framework for single-image-guided local 3D shape editing and morphing. Given an edited image showing a desired shape modification, our method automatically localizes the relevant 3D region and transfers 2D modifications to 3D while preserving unmodified areas. 3DMorph also enables intermediate shape generation between the original and edited objects, facilitating design exploration. To benchmark editing quality, we introduce Delta3D, an image-guided local 3D editing benchmark with paired ground-truth edits. Experimental results show that 3DMorph translates intuitive 2D edits into 3D, outperforming state-of-the-art generative and editing methods.

Why Are You Wrong? Counterfactual Explanations for Language Grounding with 3D Objects

Combining natural language and geometric shapes is an emerging research area with multiple applications in robotics and language-assisted design. A crucial task in this domain is object referent identification, which involves selecting a 3D object given a textual description of the target. Variability in language descriptions and spatial relationships of 3D objects makes this a complex task, increasing the need to better understand the behavior of neural network models in this domain. However, limited research has been conducted in this area. Specifically, when a model makes an incorrect prediction despite being provided with a seemingly correct object description, practitioners are left wondering: "Why is the model wrong?". In this work, we present a method answering this question by generating counterfactual examples. Our method takes a misclassified sample, which includes two objects and a text description, and generates an alternative yet similar formulation that would have resulted in a correct prediction by the model. We have evaluated our approach with data from the ShapeTalk dataset along with three distinct models. Our counterfactual examples maintain the structure of the original description, are semantically similar and meaningful. They reveal weaknesses in the description, model bias and enhance the understanding of the models behavior. Theses insights help practitioners to better interact with systems as well as engineers to improve models.