SG-Layout: Structured Scene Graph-Guided Layout Generation with LLMs

Chao Chen; Fuqiang Gu; Junsheng Wang; Mengying Xie; Mingyan Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

SG-Layout: Structured Scene Graph-Guided Layout Generation with LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SG-Layout claims that injecting scene-graph tokens into a frozen LLM yields more spatially accurate and physically consistent layouts than text-only tuning of the same backbone.

desk verdict A credible, incremental graph-conditioned layout generation paper; the core result holds up best in relation-dense scenes, and the main gaps are missing robustness analysis and artifacts, not fatal correctness. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01106 v1 pith:5WURFNZD submitted 2026-08-02 cs.CV cs.AI

Junsheng Wang , Chao Chen , Mengying Xie , Mingyan Li , Fuqiang Gu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords scenegraphslayoutgenerationlargelanguagemodelsspatialreasoninggraph-languagealignmentLoRAindoorsynthesisobjectrearrangement

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SG-Layout claims that explicit structured spatial knowledge, fed into a frozen instruction-tuned LLM as scene-graph tokens, produces more spatially accurate and physically consistent layouts than tuning the same LLM on text alone. The paper argues that natural-language instructions are inherently ambiguous about object relations, and that scene graphs supply the missing compositional structure. It reports consistent gains on image layout generation, 3D indoor scene synthesis, and robotic object rearrangement, with the largest improvements in relation-dense scenes. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that graph-conditioned token injection is a viable parameter-efficient route to spatial reasoning in compact open-source LLMs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the scene graph token, produced by a relational graph transformer (RGT) encoder followed by a projector that maps graph node and edge embeddings into the LLM's token-embedding space. These graph tokens are prepended to the text tokens of the user instruction, and the concatenated sequence is decoded by Qwen3-8B with LoRA adapters. A two-stage training schedule aligns the graph encoder and projector first by asking the frozen LLM to describe a room from graph tokens, then fine-tunes only the LoRA parameters to emit serialized layouts. The design keeps the backbone frozen throughout, so any gain is attributed to the injected graph structure rather than to re-training the language model.

What would settle it

Re-run the indoor scene synthesis and rearrangement evaluations with a separately verified gold set of scene graphs, and also with randomly shuffled graph edges at inference. If shuffled or corrected graphs produce the same PSA and out-of-bound numbers as the original graphs, then the gain is not caused by the graph content, and the two-stage alignment claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a relational graph encoder plus a learned projector can map scene-graph embeddings into the linguistic latent space of a frozen LLM, and that once aligned, those graph tokens condition layout decoding better than text-only instruction tuning. On the indoor scene synthesis benchmark, SG-Layout raises relation-preservation accuracy (PSA) to 66.2% versus 56.7% for Qwen3+LoRA and 23.5% for the bare backbone, while cutting the out-of-bound rate from 57.2% to 43.5%. In 2D image layout it beats both Qwen3 variants at six and eight objects and improves IoU and CLIP scores. The authors frame the result as a controlled comparison within the Qwen3 family, treating GPT-4-based and diffusion baselines as reference points rather than matched training protocols.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scene graphs used for training and evaluation—generated by GPT-4o or a vision-language model with manual correction—are accurate enough to serve as ground truth; if these graphs contain wrong nodes or edges, the model is trained on incorrect relations and the reported advantage reflects graph quality rather than learned spatial reasoning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At six and eight objects in image layout generation, graph conditioning yields higher spatial-relation accuracy than text-only LoRA on the same frozen backbone.
In 3D indoor scene synthesis, SG-Layout improves relation preservation and reduces out-of-bound placements relative to text-only LoRA tuning.
The advantage of graph conditioning grows as relation density and scene complexity increase, while simple two-object prompts can still favor text-only tuning.
Because the backbone stays frozen, the two-stage alignment recipe can be transferred to other instruction-following LLMs without full fine-tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The authors' reliance on GPT-4o and a vision-language model with manual correction to build training scene graphs means the method's ceiling is partly set by parser accuracy; a natural stress test is training with noisy or automatically parsed graphs and measuring how much of the PSA gain survives.
The same graph-token injection could transfer to other geometry-conditioned generation tasks, such as floorplan synthesis or the millimeter-tolerant surgical-tray layouts the authors list as future work.
Because scene graphs are a controllable input, editing nodes or edges at inference should yield predictable layout changes; that would make SG-Layout a testable interface for interactive layout editing, a property the paper does not directly evaluate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Know this paper for one thing: it is a clean, controlled demonstration that feeding scene-graph tokens into a frozen Qwen3-8B, via a relational graph encoder plus projector plus LoRA, improves layout generation—especially when scenes are relation-dense. That is a useful incremental result, not a breakthrough.

What is actually new: the two-stage pipeline (first align graph embeddings with language by training the encoder/projector to describe scenes, then LoRA-tune the LLM for layout output) and the empirical finding that graph conditioning helps most at 6/8 objects in image layout and in 3D room synthesis. The controlled ablations against Qwen3 and Qwen3+LoRA are the right design; comparing to GPT-4-based systems is honestly labeled as reference, not head-to-head.

Credit where due: Table 3 shows SG-Layout beats the strong Qwen3+LoRA baseline on PSA, OOB, Pos., Rot., and F1, and the encoder ablation (R-GCN vs GAT vs RGT) shows the choice matters. The paper is clearly written and does not oversell against GPT-4 systems.

Now the soft spots. The biggest one is the missing analysis of input graph quality. The pipeline parses user instructions with GPT-4o at inference and builds training graphs with a VLM plus manual correction. There is no parser accuracy number and no error-injection ablation, so we do not know how much the gains depend on correct parsing or whether the model is robust to noisy or wrong edges. I read the PSA metric as less circular than it might appear: if the inference graph is wrong relative to ground truth, satisfying it should hurt PSA, not help. But the softer version of the concern stands—graph conditioning could be outsourcing relation recognition to the parser, and the paper does not measure that. This needs an ablation or at least parser accuracy reporting.

Second, Table 4 is genuinely mixed: at K=2 and K=4, text-only LoRA has higher AUC; graph wins at K=6/8 along with IoU and CLIP. The abstract's blanket "improves over the backbone" is too broad without the complexity caveat. Third, no error bars, significance tests, code, or exact dataset construction protocol; replication would require contacting authors. That is a real limitation for a paper whose main evidence is empirical.

Who is this for? People working on LLM-based layout generation, indoor scene synthesis, or spatial reasoning in VLMs. It deserves peer review; it is a serious, honest empirical study with a clear experimental design. I would not cite it in my own work this year, but I would send it to a competent referee, mainly to push for the graph-error analysis.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SG-Layout, a two-stage framework that injects structured scene-graph information into a frozen Qwen3-8B LLM. In Stage 1 a relational graph encoder and projector are trained to align graph embeddings with the LLM's token space; in Stage 2 LoRA adapters are tuned for instruction-driven layout generation while the graph modules stay frozen. The method is evaluated on 2D image layout generation, 3D indoor scene synthesis, and object rearrangement, with controlled ablations against Qwen3 and Qwen3+LoRA and reference comparisons against LayoutGPT, SKE-Layout, and other systems. The central claim is that graph conditioning improves spatial reasoning accuracy and geometric consistency, with the largest gains in relation-dense and compositionally complex scenes.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is valuable: it demonstrates a parameter-efficient way to inject explicit relational structure into an LLM for layout generation, a task where text-only LLMs are known to be weak. The controlled experimental design is a strength: comparisons against Qwen3+LoRA under the same backbone isolate the effect of graph conditioning, and the metrics (PSA, IoU, OOB, collision, position/rotation error, F1) are external geometric quantities rather than model-generated judgments. The graph-encoder ablation in Table 5 is also a useful internal check. The paper's main limitation is that the reliability of the scene graphs themselves is never measured or stress-tested, and the reported differences lack statistical support, so the size of the claimed advantage is not yet firmly established.

major comments (4)

[§3.2, §3.3, §4.1 (Table 3)] The load-bearing premise of the central claim is that the scene graphs used at training and inference time are accurate enough to serve as ground-truth relational structure. Section 3.2 states that training graphs are produced by a VLM 'followed by manual verification,' while Section 3.3 states that inference graphs are generated by GPT-4o 'under rule guidance'; the paper reports no parser accuracy against human labels, no graph-error statistics, and no corruption/error-injection ablation. Because PSA (Eq. 2, §4.1) measures preservation of 'ground-truth directional relations,' and because those relations are the same relations that the graph tokenizer exposes to the model at inference, the 66.2% vs 56.7% PSA gap in Table 3 could partly reflect the model copying relations from the input graph rather than learning spatial reasoning. Please add a graph-quality evaluation on a human-verified sample and an ablation with degraded or randomly corrupted graphs (e.g., edge removal, node substitution) to show that the method degrades gracefully and that the reported advantage is not an artifact of parser self-consistency.
[§4.2 (Tables 3 and 4)] All comparisons are single-run point estimates without error bars, significance tests, or multiple-seed reporting. This matters because the controlled advantages are not uniform: in Table 4, Qwen3+LoRA outperforms SG-Layout at K=2 (92.58 vs 89.85) and K=4 (73.0 vs 71.5), and in Table 3 the collision rates are effectively tied (19.0% vs 19.2%). The paper should report mean and standard deviation over at least three runs and, if feasible, a paired significance test over matched prompts; without this, the claim that graph conditioning 'provides the largest gains in relation-dense scenes' is not statistically supported.
[§3.5, §4.2] The two-stage training paradigm is presented as a core contribution, but no ablation isolates the contribution of Stage 1 (graph-language feature alignment). The only architectural ablation in the paper is the graph-encoder study in Table 5. Please add an experiment training Stage 2 without Stage 1 (e.g., with a randomly initialized or untrained projector) and, ideally, a quantitative evaluation of the Stage-1 scene-description objective. Without this, the claim that the alignment stage specifically is necessary for the observed gains is not tested.
[§3.2, §4.1] The manuscript does not report hyperparameters, optimizer settings, learning rates, LoRA rank and alpha, projector architecture, graph-token length and sequence position, or the train/validation splits for MSCOCO-Subset, 3D-FRONT/FUTURE, and SK-Dataset, and it does not release code. Because the contribution is a training paradigm, these details are necessary to reproduce or adjudicate the results. Please include a full implementation appendix or release code and checkpoints.

minor comments (5)

[§4.3 (Figures)] The figure block in Section 4.3 appears to contain repeated example panels and near-identical captions for Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 in the provided text; please check the final PDF and ensure each figure shows the intended distinct 2D and 3D examples.
[Fig. 1 and §4.3] There are textual typos in the example prompts, most noticeably 'a table and a chair are on the left front of of the bed' and 'left front of of the bed'; these should be corrected.
[Table 3] For DiffuScene and InstructScene, several entries are marked '–' (OOB, collision, Pos., Rot., F1) without explanation; please state explicitly which metrics were not reported by these baselines, or provide the missing numbers if available.
[§4.1, Table 2] NSR-1K is listed in Table 2 with 39,436 examples, but no corresponding result table or experiment is presented in Section 4.2; please clarify its exact role in the evaluation.
[Table 4] The table lists AUC only for K=2 for LayoutGPT (GPT-3.5) and omits K=4, K=6, and K=8; the reader should be told whether those values were not reported or not computed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central graph-conditioning claim is supported by controlled ablations with external metrics; the same-group SKE-Layout reference is not load-bearing.

full rationale

SG-Layout's central claim is tested through controlled ablations (Qwen3, Qwen3+LoRA, SG-Layout) on the same Qwen3-8B backbone and task data, with external metrics including AUC, IoU, CLIP similarity, PSA, out-of-bound rate, collision rate, and position/rotation error. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then reported as a prediction of that subset: the graph encoder, projector, and LoRA adapters are trained with the stated token-level cross-entropy losses (Eq. 12) and evaluated on the downstream layout tasks. The scene-graph conditioning is an input modality, not a renamed version of the output metric: PSA is computed from predicted geometry against annotated directional relations, so a high score requires the model to translate graph tokens into metrically correct placements. The only same-group reference is SKE-Layout and SK-Dataset, but these are used as a reference baseline and benchmark rather than as justification for the central improvement, which rests on the controlled Qwen3-family comparison. The absence of parser-accuracy measurement or graph-error-injection ablations is a robustness and external-validity limitation, not a circular step. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three domain assumptions: the reliability of GPT-4o-derived scene graphs, the transfer of stage-1 alignment to layout generation, and the validity of the chosen metrics. No invented entities are introduced. No explicit fitted numeric parameter appears, but several hyperparameters and dataset-construction choices are unstated, which limits reproduction.

free parameters (3)

LoRA rank and alpha = not reported
LoRA adapters in Section 3.3 require rank and alpha choices; without them, replication depends on unknown values.
Projector and graph-token dimensions = not reported
The graph projector maps RGT embeddings to LLM token space in Equations 7 and 9, but dimensions and the number of graph tokens are unstated.
MSCOCO-Subset filtering thresholds = not reported
Section 3.2 filters by object category and bounding-box size, but the thresholds are not given, so the dataset composition is underspecified.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption GPT-4o and VLM generated scene graphs, manually corrected, are accurate enough to serve as training supervision and inference conditioning.
Section 3.2 constructs Instruction-Scene Graph-Layout triplets using a VLM and manual verification; if the parser produces wrong nodes or edges, the central claim would not transfer.
ad hoc to paper Stage-1 alignment, trained by having the frozen LLM produce a scene description from graph tokens, transfers to layout generation after LoRA instruction tuning.
Section 3.5 assumes that the description-generation objective aligns graph embeddings with the language space in a way that remains useful for layout decoding; no analysis verifies this transfer directly.
domain assumption The chosen evaluation metrics, including PSA, AUC, IoU, and F1, adequately capture spatial correctness and physical feasibility.
Section 4.1 defines metrics based on the relation set in Equation 2; if that relation set is too coarse, the metrics may reward simple relation checks rather than true layout quality.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SG-Layout: Structured Scene Graph-Guided Layout Generation with LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WURFNZD

@misc{pith2026260801106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SG-Layout: Structured Scene Graph-Guided Layout Generation with LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WURFNZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01106}
}

read the original abstract

Understanding and generating spatially coherent layouts from natural language remains a fundamental yet challenging task for large language models (LLMs). Existing LLMs often struggle to capture explicit geometric relationships and structural dependencies between objects. To address this issue, we propose SG-Layout, a graph-guided layout generation framework that explicitly incorporates structured spatial knowledge into LLMs. SG-Layout follows a two-stage training paradigm: (1) a graph-language feature alignment stage, where a relational graph encoder and a projector are trained to map scene-graph embeddings into the LLM's linguistic space; and (2) an instruction tuning stage, where LoRA-based adapters enable efficient fine-tuning for instruction-driven layout generation while keeping the backbone frozen. We evaluate SG-Layout on image layout generation, indoor scene synthesis and robotic object rearrangement tasks. Experimental results show that SG-Layout improves spatial reasoning accuracy and geometric consistency over the compact open-source backbone, with particularly clear advantages in relation-dense and compositionally complex scenes. These results highlight the effectiveness of graph-structured feature alignment for enhancing controllable layout generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01106 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Framework of SG-Layout. User instructions are parsed into scene graphs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** 3D Object Rearrangement Layout Accuracy. systems such as LLM-GROP and SKE-Layout remain strong reference baselines, but SG-Layout provides a parameter-efficient alternative built on a compact open-source backbone. Ablation on Graph Encoders. To study the impact of graph encoding architectures, we instantiate the scene-graph encoder with three alternatives: (i) R-GCN [24] as a lightweight relational baseline, (ii… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison results across scenes with varying relations on indoor scene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Dhamo, H., Manhardt, F., Navab, N., Tombari, F.: Graph-to-3d: End-to-end gen- eration and manipulation of 3d scenes using scene graphs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 16352–16361 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

In: 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

Ding, Y., Zhang, X., Paxton, C., Zhang, S.: Task and motion planning with large language models for object rearrangement. In: 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 2086–2092. IEEE (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10960 (2025)

Dwivedi, V.P., Jaladi, S., Shen, Y., López, F., Kanatsoulis, C.I., Puri, R., Fey, M., Leskovec, J.: Relational graph transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10960 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[4]

Fatemi, B., Halcrow, J., Perozzi, B.: Talk like a graph: Encoding graphs for large languagemodels.In:InternationalConferenceonLearningRepresentations(ICLR) (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 18225–18250 (2023)

Feng, W., Zhu, W., Fu, T.j., Jampani, V., Akula, A., He, X., Basu, S., Wang, X.E., Wang, W.Y.: Layoutgpt: Compositional visual planning and generation with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 18225–18250 (2023)

2023
[6]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Fu, H., Cai, B., Gao, L., Zhang, L.X., Wang, J., Li, C., Zeng, Q., Sun, C., Jia, R., Zhao, B., et al.: 3d-front: 3d furnished rooms with layouts and semantics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 10933–10942 (2021)

2021
[7]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10640 (2023)

Gani, H., Bhat, S.F., Naseer, M., Khan, S., Wonka, P.: Llm blueprint: En- abling text-to-image generation with complex and detailed prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10640 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[8]

In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Gupta, K., Lazarow, J., Achille, A., Davis, L.S., Mahadevan, V., Shrivastava, A.: Layouttransformer: Layout generation and completion with self-attention. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 1004–1014 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 37 references

[9]

org/abs/2106.09685

Hu, E.J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., Chen, W.: Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models (2021), https://arxiv. org/abs/2106.09685

2021 arXiv
[10]

In: International conference on machine learning

Huang, W., Abbeel, P., Pathak, D., Mordatch, I.: Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 9118–9147. PMLR (2022)

2022
[11]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Jyothi, A.A., Durand, T., He, J., Sigal, L., Mori, G.: Layoutvae: Stochastic scene layout generation from a label set. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 9895–9904 (2019) SG-Layout 15

2019
[12]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06767 (2019)

Li, J., Yang, J., Hertzmann, A., Zhang, J., Xu, T.: Layoutgan: Generating graphic layouts with wireframe discriminators. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06767 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[13]

ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)38(2), 1–16 (2019)

Li, M., Patil, A.G., Xu, K., Chaudhuri, S., Khan, O., Shamir, A., Tu, C., Chen, B., Cohen-Or, D., Zhang, H.: Grains: Generative recursive autoencoders for indoor scenes. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)38(2), 1–16 (2019)

2019
[14]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Li, Z., Wu, J., Koh, I., Tang, Y., Sun, L.: Image synthesis from layout with locality- aware mask adaption. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 13819–13828 (2021)

2021
[15]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04717 (2024)

Lin, C., Mu, Y.: Instructscene: Instruction-driven 3d indoor scene synthesis with semantic graph prior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04717 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[16]

In: European conference on computer vision

Lin, T.Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., Zitnick, C.L.: Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 740–755. Springer (2014)

2014
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03188 (2023)

Pan, L., Saxon, M., Xu, W., Nathani, D., Wang, X., Wang, W.Y.: Automatically correcting large language models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03188 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[18]

Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems34, 12013–12026 (2021)

Paschalidou, D., Kar, A., Shugrina, M., Kreis, K., Geiger, A., Fidler, S.: Atiss: Autoregressive transformers for indoor scene synthesis. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems34, 12013–12026 (2021)

2021
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05862 (2024)

Perozzi, B., Fatemi, B., Zelle, D., Tsitsulin, A., Kazemi, M., Al-Rfou, R., Halcrow, J.: Let your graph do the talking: Encoding structured data for llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05862 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[20]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Phung, Q., Ge, S., Huang, J.B.: Grounded text-to-image synthesis with attention refocusing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 7932–7942 (2024)

2024
[21]

In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia

Qu, L., Wu, S., Fei, H., Nie, L., Chua, T.S.: Layoutllm-t2i: Eliciting layout guidance from llm for text-to-image generation. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia. pp. 643–654 (2023)

2023
[22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05341 (2025)

Ran, X., Li, Y., Xu, L., Yu, M., Dai, B.: Direct numerical layout generation for 3d indoor scene synthesis via spatial reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05341 (2025)

2025
[23]

CoRR (2023)

Rana, K., Haviland, J., Garg, S., Abou-Chakra, J., Reid, I.D., Suenderhauf, N.: Sayplan: Grounding large language models using 3d scene graphs for scalable task planning. CoRR (2023)

2023
[24]

In: European semantic web conference

Schlichtkrull, M., Kipf, T.N., Bloem, P., Van Den Berg, R., Titov, I., Welling, M.: Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In: European semantic web conference. pp. 593–607. Springer (2018)

2018
[25]

In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

Sun, F.Y., Liu, W., Gu, S., Lim, D., Bhat, G., Tombari, F., Li, M., Haber, N., Wu, J.: Layoutvlm: Differentiable optimization of 3d layout via vision-language models. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 29469–29478 (2025)

2025
[26]

In: Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

Tang, J., Yang, Y., Wei, W., Shi, L., Su, L., Cheng, S., Yin, D., Huang, C.: Graphgpt: Graph instruction tuning for large language models. In: Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. pp. 491–500 (2024)

2024
[27]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Tang, J., Nie, Y., Markhasin, L., Dai, A., Thies, J., Nießner, M.: Diffuscene: De- noising diffusion models for generative indoor scene synthesis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 20507– 20518 (2024)

2024
[28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017) 16 J

Veličković, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Lio, P., Bengio, Y.: Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017) 16 J. Wang et al

2017 arXiv
[29]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Vidanapathirana, M., Wu, Q., Furukawa, Y., Chang, A.X., Savva, M.: Plan2scene: Converting floorplans to 3d scenes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 10733–10742 (2021)

2021
[30]

In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

Wang, J., Cao, N., Ding, Y., Xie, M., Gu, F., Chen, C.: Ske-layout: Spatial knowl- edge enhanced layout generation with llms. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 19414–19423 (2025)

2025
[31]

In: 2021 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

Wang, X., Yeshwanth, C., Nießner, M.: Sceneformer: Indoor scene generation with transformers. In: 2021 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). pp. 106–115. IEEE (2021)

2021
[32]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition

Wu, T.H., Lian, L., Gonzalez, J.E., Li, B., Darrell, T.: Self-correcting llm-controlled diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition. pp. 6327–6336 (2024)

2024
[33]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 (2025)

Yang, A., Li, A., Yang, B., Zhang, B., Hui, B., Zheng, B., Yu, B., Gao, C., Huang, C., Lv, C., et al.: Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[34]

In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA)

Zhai, G., Cai, X., Huang, D., Di, Y., Manhardt, F., Tombari, F., Navab, N., Busam, B.: Sg-bot: Object rearrangement via coarse-to-fine robotic imagination on scene graphs. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA). pp. 4303–4310. IEEE (2024)

2024
[35]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Zhai, G., Örnek, E.P., Chen, D.Z., Liao, R., Di, Y., Navab, N., Tombari, F., Busam, B.: Echoscene: Indoor scene generation via information echo over scene graph diffu- sion. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 167–184. Springer (2024)

2024
[36]

International journal of computer vision128(10), 2418–2435 (2020)

Zhao, B., Yin, W., Meng, L., Sigal, L.: Layout2image: Image generation from lay- out. International journal of computer vision128(10), 2418–2435 (2020)

2020
[37]

In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia

Zhong, S., Huang, Z., Wen, W., Qin, J., Lin, L.: Sur-adapter: Enhancing text-to- image pre-trained diffusion models with large language models. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. pp. 567–578 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Dhamo, H., Manhardt, F., Navab, N., Tombari, F.: Graph-to-3d: End-to-end gen- eration and manipulation of 3d scenes using scene graphs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 16352–16361 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [2]

In: 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

Ding, Y., Zhang, X., Paxton, C., Zhang, S.: Task and motion planning with large language models for object rearrangement. In: 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 2086–2092. IEEE (2023)

work page 2023

[3] [3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10960 (2025)

Dwivedi, V.P., Jaladi, S., Shen, Y., López, F., Kanatsoulis, C.I., Puri, R., Fey, M., Leskovec, J.: Relational graph transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10960 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Fatemi, B., Halcrow, J., Perozzi, B.: Talk like a graph: Encoding graphs for large languagemodels.In:InternationalConferenceonLearningRepresentations(ICLR) (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 18225–18250 (2023)

Feng, W., Zhu, W., Fu, T.j., Jampani, V., Akula, A., He, X., Basu, S., Wang, X.E., Wang, W.Y.: Layoutgpt: Compositional visual planning and generation with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 18225–18250 (2023)

2023

[6] [6]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Fu, H., Cai, B., Gao, L., Zhang, L.X., Wang, J., Li, C., Zeng, Q., Sun, C., Jia, R., Zhao, B., et al.: 3d-front: 3d furnished rooms with layouts and semantics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 10933–10942 (2021)

2021

[7] [7]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10640 (2023)

Gani, H., Bhat, S.F., Naseer, M., Khan, S., Wonka, P.: Llm blueprint: En- abling text-to-image generation with complex and detailed prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10640 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Gupta, K., Lazarow, J., Achille, A., Davis, L.S., Mahadevan, V., Shrivastava, A.: Layouttransformer: Layout generation and completion with self-attention. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 1004–1014 (2021)

work page 2021