Which quality claims in these 3D generation releases are measured results, which are vendor claims, and where do tables reuse or anonymise rows?
Partially verified: the curator re-read none of the cited sources; S6, S29, S30, S34, S31, S28, S27 rest on the producer's pinned reading. All quantitative comparisons inspected were run and reported by the releasing teams; none is an independent evaluation. Three flags for curation: (1) the Hunyuan3D-2 README table lists "Top Open-source Model1" with numbers identical to the Trellis row in the Hunyuan 2.0 paper, and three unnamed closed-source rows; (2) Michelangelo, Craftsman 1.5 and Trellis rows in the Hunyuan 2.1 shape table are numerically identical to the same rows in the 2.0 paper, and the 2.1 texture table repeats the 2.0 paper Paint CLIP-FID, CMMD and CLIP values for "Hunyuan3D-2.0" but with a different LPIPS (0.1261 vs 0.0059); (3) the 2.1 title says "Production-Ready PBR Material" while its tables are image-level similarity metrics and contain no PBR-correctness or topology test. TripoSG ranks against methods with an LMM judge, and its VAE metrics are on its own data.
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://github.com/Tencent-Hunyuan/Hunyuan3D-2/blob/f8db63096c8282cb27354314d896feba5ba6ff8a/README.md",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12202v5",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.15442v1",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06608v3",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00653v1",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14692v1",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
},
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01506v3",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] All quantitative comparisons inspected were run and reported by the releasing teams; none is an independent evaluation. Three flags for curation: (1) the Hunyuan3D-2 README table lists "Top Open-source Model1" with numbers identical to the Trellis row in the Hunyuan 2.0 paper, and three unnamed closed-source rows; (2) Michelangelo, Craftsman 1.5 and Trellis rows in the Hunyuan 2.1 shape table are numerically identical to the same rows in the 2.0 paper, and the 2.1 texture table repeats the 2.0 paper Paint CLIP-FID, CMMD and CLIP values for "Hunyuan3D-2.0" but with a different LPIPS (0.1261 vs 0.0059); (3) the 2.1 title says "Production-Ready PBR Material" while its tables are image-level similarity metrics and contain no PBR-correctness or topology test. TripoSG ranks against methods with an LMM judge, and its VAE metrics are on its own data. · locator: candidate evidence excerpts source
Rights
| component | license | hosting | redistribution | modification | training | Evidence and notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| documentation | unknown | permitted | permitted | unknown | unknown | Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources. |
Linked records
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00653v1
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01506v3
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12202v5
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06608v3
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.15442v1
- cites → https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14692v1
- cites → https://github.com/Tencent-Hunyuan/Hunyuan3D-2/blob/f8db63096c8282cb27354314d896feba5ba6ff8a/README.md