Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 75 references

ScanEdit: Hierarchically-Guided Functional 3D Scan Editing

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ScanEdit claims the first text-instruction-driven method for editing complex real-world 3D scans, handling scenes with 69–306 objects by hierarchically decomposing the edit.

desk verdict A well-engineered hierarchical LLM+VLM system for editing real 3D scans, with a genuine novelty claim but a few measurement and reproducibility gaps that keep me from fully endorsing the results. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15049 v1 pith:ZK5AINSC submitted 2025-04-21 cs.CV

Mohamed el amine Boudjoghra , Ivan Laptev , Angela Dai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3Dsceneeditinggraphslargelanguagemodelsvision-languagephysicalplausibilityindoorscenesinstruction-drivenunderstanding
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

This paper introduces ScanEdit, a method that edits a real-world 3D scan by following a natural-language instruction such as 'rearrange the chairs to face the television.' It claims to be the first approach to handle instruction-driven rearrangement of complex scans containing hundreds of objects, far beyond the synthetic scenes that earlier text-to-3D layout systems handle. The key idea is to decompose the edit into a hierarchy: build a scene graph of objects with attributes and relations, select the subgraph relevant to the instruction, generate per-object instructions with an LLM planner, place objects hierarchically relative to their parents, then jointly optimize positions and orientations with convex losses for support, wall contact, collision avoidance, and group preservation. If correct, this makes interactive functional editing of captured indoor scenes practical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hierarchical scene graph: nodes are object instances annotated by a VLM with class, color, material, short description, front-facing direction, sampled surface points, and support surfaces; edges are directed relations ('on top of', 'facing', 'against wall') estimated with geometric heuristics. This representation lets the method decompose a high-level instruction into tractable local edits: an LLM subgraph selector prunes irrelevant context, an LLM planner and placement agent propose object-specific movements in parent-relative frames, and a set of convex differentiable losses (on-top-of surface loss, against-wall loss, collision loss with a stop condition, and group-structure loss) jointly optimize the final arrangement under physical constraints. The hierarchy is what makes scenes with 69–306 objects feasible within LLM context limits and what grounds the LLM's spatial guesses in geometry.

What would settle it

Take a set of edited scene outputs, manually label the true support, facing, and wall relations for moved objects, and compare them with the scene-graph edges produced by the VLM/heuristic stage; if a substantial fraction of the load-bearing edges are wrong (e.g., more than 10%) while the editing still appears successful, or randomly corrupting a portion of the edges does not degrade output quality, then the claimed causal role of the hierarchical constraints is in doubt. Conversely, if manually correcting the edges substantially improves results, that supports the paper's mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ScanEdit's central claim is that functional text-based editing of complex, real-world 3D scans becomes tractable when the edit is structured hierarchically and grounded in explicit geometric constraints. Given a scan decomposed into object instances, the method constructs a hierarchical scene graph whose nodes carry VLM-estimated attributes (class, color, material, description, front normal, support surfaces) and whose directed edges encode 'on top of', 'facing', and 'against wall' relations estimated by 3D heuristics. An LLM agent prunes this graph to the instruction-relevant subgraph; a planner LLM converts the instruction into localized per-object instructions in parent-relative frames; a placement LLM proposes concrete positions, orientations, and constraints; and a final convex optimization resolves support, wall-contact, collision, and group-structure losses. The paper reports that this pipeline outperforms two state-of-the-art layout-generation baselines on geometric plausibility metrics (NoFloat, InBound, ColVol, PIoU) on 93 evaluation samples from ScanNet++ and Replica, and is strongly preferred by human raters.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline assumes that the VLM-annotated object attributes and the geometric heuristics for 'on top of', 'facing', and 'against wall' edges are correct enough, and that the LLM's subgraph and placement proposals are plausible enough, that the convex optimizer can turn them into a physically and semantically valid scene; if any one of these upstream signals is badly wrong, the optimizer cannot recover the intended arrangement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Complex real-world scans with hundreds of objects become editable through natural language, enabling content creation, VR/AR staging, and robot goal-state visualization.
  • The hierarchical decomposition allows LLM context limits to be respected by sending only instruction-relevant subgraphs to the language models.
  • The convex optimization with physical losses fixes the LLM's spatial blind spots, producing non-floating, in-bounds, collision-free arrangements.
  • The method beats the two compared layout-generation baselines on geometric plausibility and human preference, suggesting that hierarchy plus physics-style constraints is a promising route for realistic scene editing.
  • Because the output scene is a rearrangement of the original object meshes, it preserves instance identity and original geometry, unlike methods that replace objects with retrieved assets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The hierarchy idea could transfer to other LLM-based spatial tasks, such as robot task planning or multi-room scene synthesis, by using the same subgraph-selection and parent-relative placement pattern.
  • The reliance on heuristic edge estimation suggests a testable extension: learning edge proposers from data could reduce the method's dependence on VLM attribute quality and make it more robust to partial scans.
  • The optimization framework could be reused for interactive editing where a user iteratively modifies instructions, since each edit only needs to re-optimize the affected subgraph rather than the whole scene.
  • If the method is combined with mesh completion or inpainting to fill holes left by moved objects, it would become a complete scene-editing tool; the paper itself notes that holes can be visible after rearrangement.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. ScanEdit proposes a pipeline for instruction-driven editing of 3D scans. It constructs a hierarchical scene graph from an object-level decomposition, annotates node attributes via a VLM and edge relations via 3D heuristics, identifies a relevant subgraph with an LLM, generates localized per-object instructions with a planning LLM, places objects hierarchically via a placement LLM, and finally optimizes object transformations using convex differentiable losses that enforce on-top-of, against-wall, collision, and group-preservation constraints. The method is evaluated on ScanNet++ and Replica scenes with 69-306 objects, against LayoutGPT and LayoutVLM, using geometric metrics (NoFloat, InBound, ColVol, PIoU) and a perceptual user study.

Significance. The paper tackles a practically important and under-explored problem: editing real, cluttered 3D scans from natural language. The hierarchical decomposition is a sensible and scalable design, and the proposed pipeline integrates LLM/VLM reasoning with geometric optimization. The evaluation includes real-world scans, multiple scenes, and ablations. If the claims were robustly established, this would be a useful contribution to the community. However, as detailed in the major comments, the absence of orientation/semantic metrics, the self-referential geometric metrics, and the lack of statistical significance testing leave the central claims only partially supported at this stage.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.5] The final objective L = LGs + αLcol + γLGt contains no term that preserves the 'facing' constraint introduced in Section 3.4. The text states that facing is resolved during hierarchical placement, but the optimization updates all three DOFs including θ. The group loss LGt preserves only center-to-center vectors, not object orientations. Consequently, the collision, on-top-of, against-wall, and group losses can rotate an object away from its initialized facing direction, breaking the functional relation that the edit is meant to create. The evaluation in Tables 1 and 2 contains no orientation or semantic-relation metric, so this failure mode is invisible. This is an internal gap: even with perfect VLM/LLM annotations, the optimizer can undo the facing alignment.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The geometric metrics NoFloat, InBound, ColVol, and PIoU are essentially the same objectives that the optimization directly minimizes in Section 3.5 (support-surface loss, boundary/against-wall loss, collision loss). Reporting these as evidence of scene quality is partially self-referential. More importantly, the reported gains over LayoutGPT are extremely small: ColVol improves from 1.3440 to 1.3381 (Δ=0.006) and PIoU from 0.478 to 0.472 (Δ=0.006). No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported across the 93 evaluation samples. Such tiny differences cannot support the claim of state-of-the-art performance.
  3. [Section 5, Limitations] The limitations paragraph states that the method 'cannot account for which possibilities would be the most common sense ones or the most aesthetically pleasing.' This directly contradicts the abstract's claim that the method generates arrangements that obey both physics and common sense. The perceptual user study is the only evidence for semantic plausibility, but the results are presented without confidence intervals or inter-rater agreement metrics. Either strengthen the perceptual evaluation with proper statistics or soften the claim.
  4. [Supplement Section 9 and Section 3.1] The correctness of the entire pipeline depends on VLM-annotated node attributes and heuristic edge estimation ('on top of', 'against wall', 'facing'). No analysis of annotation accuracy or sensitivity to errors is provided. A false edge (e.g., an incorrect 'on top of' relation) or a wrong target surface cannot be recovered by the later optimization. The paper should include an error analysis or a sensitivity study to establish that the method is robust to the noise inherent in automatic graph construction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] There are typos such as 'objectswe' in the abstract and 'retieved' in Related Works that should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.5] In the definition of the against-wall loss, 'qre' should be 'are' in the description of the object center.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] The paper should report the number of runs (or seeds) for each configuration and provide standard deviations or confidence intervals for all metrics, given that the evaluation uses a finite set of 93 instructions.
  4. [Figure 5] The perceptual study results would be more informative if the figure legend described the rating scale and included confidence intervals or error bars.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The geometric evaluation metrics largely re-state the optimized losses, but the central functional claim remains independently supported by the user study.

  1. other [Sec. 3.5 vs. Sec. 4 and Supp. Sec. 8.3 (evaluation metrics)]
    "The surface loss ensures that an object stays within the boundaries of a designated support surface ... We also include a geometric collision loss, which helps resolve any collisions between the object and nearby objects. ... [Sec. 4:] 'we adopt PIoU from DiffuScene to measure collisions ... We also evaluate the percentage of objects that are not floating (NoFloat)' ... [Supp. 8.3:] 'we check if it is supported by a support surface or not with 1cm threshlod.'"

    The reported geometric metrics are post-hoc measures of the same physical quantities the optimization forces. The final objective L = LGs + αLcol + γLGt contains LOn-top-of, whose purpose is to keep an object inside a designated support surface, while NoFloat is defined as an object being supported by a support surface within 1 cm. Likewise, Lcol pushes colliding object geometry apart, while ColVol sums pairwise bounding-volume intersections and PIoU measures collision. Thus the headline NoFloat/ColVol/PIoU numbers largely record whether the Sec. 3.5 losses accomplished what they were constructed to do, rather than providing an independent test of functional correctness.

full rationale

ScanEdit's derivation chain is not circular in the sense of importing a central result from a self-citation or defining X in terms of Y. The pipeline genuinely combines a VLM-annotated scene graph, LLM-based subgraph identification, localized planning, hierarchical placement, and a convex optimization, with each stage consuming the previous stage's output and the final scene not equivalent to any single input. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work; DiffuScene is cited only as the source of the PIoU metric. The one exhibitable circularity is in the geometric evaluation: NoFloat, ColVol, and PIoU measure almost exactly the support-surface and collision quantities that the Sec. 3.5 losses minimize, so Tables 1 and 2 partially report that the optimizer satisfied its own objective. The independent functional claim rests on the user study in Fig. 5, which uses human ratings rather than the optimized losses. The reviewer-flagged 'facing' issue is a real internal correctness gap rather than a circularity: the final loss contains no orientation-preservation term, but that is an omitted constraint, not a self-referential reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

ScanEdit introduces no new physical entities; it rearranges existing object instances. It relies on several hand-set geometric thresholds (5 cm, 1 cm, 4*r), unreported optimization weights (alpha, gamma), and a chain of LLM/VLM assumptions. The physical plausibility metrics evaluated in Sec. 4 are the same objectives optimized in Sec. 3.5, which is a source of circularity.

free parameters (5)
  • loss weights alpha, gamma = not reported
    Weights in the final objective L = LGs + alpha * Lcol + gamma * LGt (Sec. 3.5) are not specified; presumably tuned on validation data.
  • support height threshold = 5 cm
    Used to assign 'on top of' edges in supplement Sec. 9.1; hand-set.
  • against-wall distance threshold = 5 cm
    Used to assign 'against wall' edges in supplement Sec. 9.2; hand-set.
  • collision stop threshold = 4*r, with r about 1 cm
    STOPcol condition in Sec. 3.5; hand-set.
  • floating threshold = 1 cm
    Threshold for the NoFloat metric in supplement Sec. 8.3; hand-set.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLMs and VLMs provide sufficiently accurate semantic reasoning for object selection, planning, and placement.
    The entire pipeline depends on LLM/VLM outputs for subgraph identification (Sec. 3.2), planning (Sec. 3.3), and placement (Sec. 3.4). If these models hallucinate or misidentify relevant objects, the optimization cannot fix the semantic error.
  • domain assumption The input RGB-D reconstruction and instance segmentation are accurate.
    The method consumes a reconstructed mesh with instance decomposition (Sec. 3 intro); errors in reconstruction or segmentation would propagate through graph construction and editing.
  • domain assumption 3D heuristic edge estimation correctly captures scene relations.
    Edges 'on top of', 'facing', and 'against wall' are estimated by distance and normal-alignment heuristics (supplement Sec. 9). False edges would mislead the subgraph selection and placement.
  • domain assumption The convex losses guarantee physically plausible placements.
    The optimization assumes signed-distance surface loss, against-wall loss, and collision push loss are sufficient to prevent floating, out-of-boundary, and colliding objects (Sec. 3.5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ScanEdit: Hierarchically-Guided Functional 3D Scan Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZK5AINSC

@misc{pith2026250415049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ScanEdit: Hierarchically-Guided Functional 3D Scan Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZK5AINSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15049}
}
read the original abstract

With the fast pace of 3D capture technology and resulting abundance of 3D data, effective 3D scene editing becomes essential for a variety of graphics applications. In this work we present ScanEdit, an instruction-driven method for functional editing of complex, real-world 3D scans. To model large and interdependent sets of ob- jectswe propose a hierarchically-guided approach. Given a 3D scan decomposed into its object instances, we first construct a hierarchical scene graph representation to enable effective, tractable editing. We then leverage reason- ing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and translate high-level language instructions into actionable commands applied hierarchically to the scene graph. Fi- nally, ScanEdit integrates LLM-based guidance with ex- plicit physical constraints and generates realistic scenes where object arrangements obey both physics and common sense. In our extensive experimental evaluation ScanEdit outperforms state of the art and demonstrates excellent re- sults for a variety of real-world scenes and input instruc- tions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ScanEdit enables instruction-driven editing of complex, real-world scenes by rearranging their 3D scans. Given an input 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of ScanEdit. Given an input instruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison with baselines LayoutGPT [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation visualization over loss components. Our final loss with all components produces physically plausible results that avoid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our perceptual study shows that users strongly pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Editing results of our method with instance segmentation masks generated by Mask3D [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We show in this figure the bounding volumes of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Open-universe indoor scene generation using llm program synthesis and uncurated object databases

    Rio Aguina-Kang, Maxim Gumin, Do Heon Han, Stew- art Morris, Seung Jean Yoo, Aditya Ganeshan, R Kenny Jones, Qiuhong Anna Wei, Kailiang Fu, and Daniel Ritchie. Open-universe indoor scene generation using llm program synthesis and uncurated object databases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09675, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Scenefactor: Factored latent 3d diffusion for controllable 3d scene generation

    Alexey Bokhovkin, Quan Meng, Shubham Tulsiani, and Angela Dai. Scenefactor: Factored latent 3d diffusion for controllable 3d scene generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01801, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    I-design: Personal- ized llm interior designer

    Ata C ¸ elen, Guo Han, Konrad Schindler, Luc Van Gool, Iro Armeni, Anton Obukhov, and Xi Wang. I-design: Personal- ized llm interior designer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02838,

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Learning spatial knowledge for text to 3d scene generation

    Angel Chang, Manolis Savva, and Christopher D Manning. Learning spatial knowledge for text to 3d scene generation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 2028–2038,

    2014

  5. [5]

    Generic 3d diffusion adapter using controlled multi-view editing

    Hansheng Chen, Ruoxi Shi, Yulin Liu, Bokui Shen, Ji- ayuan Gu, Gordon Wetzstein, Hao Su, and Leonidas Guibas. Generic 3d diffusion adapter using controlled multi-view editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12032, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Shap-editor: Instruction-guided latent 3d editing in seconds

    Minghao Chen, Junyu Xie, Iro Laina, and Andrea Vedaldi. Shap-editor: Instruction-guided latent 3d editing in seconds. In CVPR, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    3d paintbrush: Local stylization of 3d shapes with cascaded score distillation

    Dale Decatur, Itai Lang, Kfir Aberman, and Rana Hanocka. 3d paintbrush: Local stylization of 3d shapes with cascaded score distillation. In CVPR, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Interactive3d: Create what you want by interactive 3d generation

    Shaocong Dong, Lihe Ding, Zhanpeng Huang, Zibin Wang, Tianfan Xue, and Dan Xu. Interactive3d: Create what you want by interactive 3d generation. In CVPR, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Preditor3d: Fast and precise 3d shape edit- ing

    Ziya Erkoc ¸, Can G ¨umeli, Chaoyang Wang, Matthias Nießner, Angela Dai, Peter Wonka, Hsin-Ying Lee, and Peiye Zhuang. Preditor3d: Fast and precise 3d shape edit- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06592, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Layoutgpt: Compositional visual plan- ning and generation with large language models

    Weixi Feng, Wanrong Zhu, Tsu-jui Fu, Varun Jampani, Ar- jun Akula, Xuehai He, Sugato Basu, Xin Eric Wang, and William Yang Wang. Layoutgpt: Compositional visual plan- ning and generation with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 1...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Context-based search for 3d models

    Matthew Fisher and Pat Hanrahan. Context-based search for 3d models. In ACM SIGGRAPH Asia 2010 papers , pages 1–10. 2010. 2

    2010

  4. [12]

    Example-based synthesis of 3d object arrangements

    Matthew Fisher, Daniel Ritchie, Manolis Savva, Thomas Funkhouser, and Pat Hanrahan. Example-based synthesis of 3d object arrangements. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 31(6):1–11, 2012. 2

    2012

  5. [13]

    Activity-centric scene synthesis for functional 3d scene modeling

    Matthew Fisher, Manolis Savva, Yangyan Li, Pat Hanrahan, and Matthias Nießner. Activity-centric scene synthesis for functional 3d scene modeling. ACM Transactions on Graph- ics (TOG), 34(6):1–13, 2015. 2

    2015

  6. [14]

    Adaptive synthesis of indoor scenes via activity-associated object relation graphs

    Qiang Fu, Xiaowu Chen, Xiaotian Wang, Sijia Wen, Bin Zhou, and Hongbo Fu. Adaptive synthesis of indoor scenes via activity-associated object relation graphs. ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG), 36(6):1–13, 2017. 2

    2017

  7. [15]

    Any- home: Open-vocabulary generation of structured and tex- tured 3d homes

    Rao Fu, Zehao Wen, Zichen Liu, and Srinath Sridhar. Any- home: Open-vocabulary generation of structured and tex- tured 3d homes. In European Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 52–70. Springer, 2025. 2

    2025

  8. [16]

    Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa

    Ayaan Haque, Matthew Tancik, Alexei A. Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 19740–19750, 2023. 2

    2023

  9. [17]

    Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions

    Ayaan Haque, Matthew Tancik, Alexei A Efros, Aleksander Holynski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Instruct-nerf2nerf: Edit- ing 3d scenes with instructions. In ICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  10. [18]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 2

    2020

  11. [19]

    Fireplace: Geometric refinements of llm common sense reasoning for 3d object placement

    Ian Huang, Yanan Bao, Karen Truong, Howard Zhou, Cordelia Schmid, Leonidas Guibas, and Alireza Fathi. Fireplace: Geometric refinements of llm common sense reasoning for 3d object placement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04919, 2025. 2

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Learning object arrangements in 3d scenes using human context.arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.6462, 2012

    Yun Jiang, Marcus Lim, and Ashutosh Saxena. Learning object arrangements in 3d scenes using human context.arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.6462, 2012. 2

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Grains: Generative re- cursive autoencoders for indoor scenes

    Manyi Li, Akshay Gadi Patil, Kai Xu, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Owais Khan, Ariel Shamir, Changhe Tu, Baoquan Chen, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Hao Zhang. Grains: Generative re- cursive autoencoders for indoor scenes. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 38(2):1–16, 2019. 2

    2019

  14. [22]

    Instructscene: Instruction- driven 3d indoor scene synthesis with semantic graph prior

    Chenguo Lin and Yadong Mu. Instructscene: Instruction- driven 3d indoor scene synthesis with semantic graph prior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04717, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Action-driven 3d indoor scene evolu- tion

    Rui Ma, Honghua Li, Changqing Zou, Zicheng Liao, Xin Tong, and Hao Zhang. Action-driven 3d indoor scene evolu- tion. ACM Trans. Graph., 35(6):173–1, 2016. 2

    2016

  16. [24]

    Sceneteller: Language-to-3d scene generation

    Bas ¸ak Melis¨Ocal, Maxim Tatarchenko, Sezer Karao˘glu, and Theo Gevers. Sceneteller: Language-to-3d scene generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 362–

  17. [25]

    Atiss: Autoregres- sive transformers for indoor scene synthesis

    Despoina Paschalidou, Amlan Kar, Maria Shugrina, Karsten Kreis, Andreas Geiger, and Sanja Fidler. Atiss: Autoregres- sive transformers for indoor scene synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:12013–12026,

  18. [26]

    Sg-vae: Scene grammar variational autoencoder to generate new in- door scenes

    Pulak Purkait, Christopher Zach, and Ian Reid. Sg-vae: Scene grammar variational autoencoder to generate new in- door scenes. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th Euro- pean Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Pro- ceedings, Part XXIV 16, pages 155–171. Springer, 2020. 2

    2020

  19. [27]

    Human-centric indoor scene synthesis us- ing stochastic grammar

    Siyuan Qi, Yixin Zhu, Siyuan Huang, Chenfanfu Jiang, and Song-Chun Zhu. Human-centric indoor scene synthesis us- ing stochastic grammar. In Proceedings of the IEEE Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5899–5908, 2018. 2

    2018

  20. [28]

    Tailor3d: Customized 3d assets edit- ing and generation with dual-side images

    Zhangyang Qi, Yunhan Yang, Mengchen Zhang, Long Xing, Xiaoyang Wu, Tong Wu, Dahua Lin, Xihui Liu, Jiaqi Wang, and Hengshuang Zhao. Tailor3d: Customized 3d assets edit- ing and generation with dual-side images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06191, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lay-a-scene: Personalized 3d object arrangement using text-to-image priors

    Ohad Rahamim, Hilit Segev, Idan Achituve, Yuval Atzmon, Yoni Kasten, and Gal Chechik. Lay-a-scene: Personalized 3d object arrangement using text-to-image priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00687, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Fast and flex- ible indoor scene synthesis via deep convolutional genera- tive models

    Daniel Ritchie, Kai Wang, and Yu-an Lin. Fast and flex- ible indoor scene synthesis via deep convolutional genera- tive models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 6182– 6190, 2019. 2

    2019

  23. [31]

    Mask3d: Mask trans- former for 3d semantic instance segmentation

    Jonas Schult, Francis Engelmann, Alexander Hermans, Or Litany, Siyu Tang, and Bastian Leibe. Mask3d: Mask trans- former for 3d semantic instance segmentation. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 8216–8223. IEEE, 2023. 9

    2023

  24. [32]

    V ox-e: Text-guided voxel editing of 3d ob- jects

    Etai Sella, Gal Fiebelman, Peter Hedman, and Hadar Averbuch-Elor. V ox-e: Text-guided voxel editing of 3d ob- jects. In ICCV, 2023. 2

    2023

  25. [33]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, pages 2256–2265. PMLR, 2015. 2

    2015

  26. [34]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Generative modeling by esti- mating gradients of the data distribution.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by esti- mating gradients of the data distribution.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Improved techniques for training score-based generative models

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Improved techniques for training score-based generative models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:12438–12448, 2020. 2

    2020

  29. [37]

    The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces

    Julian Straub, Thomas Whelan, Lingni Ma, Yufan Chen, Erik Wijmans, Simon Green, Jakob J Engel, Raul Mur-Artal, Carl Ren, Shobhit Verma, et al. The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05797,

    1906 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Nerfeditor: Differentiable style decomposition for 3d scene editing

    Chunyi Sun, Yanbin Liu, Junlin Han, and Stephen Gould. Nerfeditor: Differentiable style decomposition for 3d scene editing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , pages 7306– 7315, 2024. 2

    2024

  31. [39]

    Layoutvlm: Differentiable optimization of 3d layout via vision-language models

    Fan-Yun Sun, Weiyu Liu, Siyi Gu, Dylan Lim, Goutam Bhat, Federico Tombari, Manling Li, Nick Haber, and Jiajun Wu. Layoutvlm: Differentiable optimization of 3d layout via vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02193,

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Diffuscene: Denoising diffu- sion models for generative indoor scene synthesis

    Jiapeng Tang, Yinyu Nie, Lev Markhasin, Angela Dai, Justus Thies, and Matthias Nießner. Diffuscene: Denoising diffu- sion models for generative indoor scene synthesis. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 20507–20518, 2024. 2, 6

    2024

  33. [41]

    Gaussianeditor: Editing 3d gaussians delicately with text instructions

    Junjie Wang, Jiemin Fang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Lingxi Xie, and Qi Tian. Gaussianeditor: Editing 3d gaussians delicately with text instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20902–20911, 2024. 2

    2024

  34. [42]

    Deep convolutional priors for indoor scene syn- thesis

    Kai Wang, Manolis Savva, Angel X Chang, and Daniel Ritchie. Deep convolutional priors for indoor scene syn- thesis. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(4):1–14,

  35. [43]

    Planit: Planning and in- stantiating indoor scenes with relation graph and spatial prior networks

    Kai Wang, Yu-An Lin, Ben Weissmann, Manolis Savva, An- gel X Chang, and Daniel Ritchie. Planit: Planning and in- stantiating indoor scenes with relation graph and spatial prior networks. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 38(4):1– 15, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Sceneformer: Indoor scene generation with transformers

    Xinpeng Wang, Chandan Yeshwanth, and Matthias Nießner. Sceneformer: Indoor scene generation with transformers. In 2021 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , pages 106–115. IEEE, 2021. 2

    2021

  37. [45]

    Lego-net: Learning regular rearrangements of ob- jects in rooms

    Qiuhong Anna Wei, Sijie Ding, Jeong Joon Park, Rahul Sajnani, Adrien Poulenard, Srinath Sridhar, and Leonidas Guibas. Lego-net: Learning regular rearrangements of ob- jects in rooms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.09629, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Targf: Learning target gradient field for object rearrange- ment

    Mingdong Wu, Fangwei Zhong, Yulong Xia, and Hao Dong. Targf: Learning target gradient field for object rearrange- ment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00853, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Tack- ling the generative learning trilemma with denoising diffu- sion gans

    Zhisheng Xiao, Karsten Kreis, and Arash Vahdat. Tack- ling the generative learning trilemma with denoising diffu- sion gans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.07804, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Sketch2scene: Sketch-based co-retrieval and co- placement of 3d models

    Kun Xu, Kang Chen, Hongbo Fu, Wei-Lun Sun, and Shi- Min Hu. Sketch2scene: Sketch-based co-retrieval and co- placement of 3d models. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 32(4):1–15, 2013. 2

    2013

  41. [49]

    Scene synthesis via uncertainty-driven attribute syn- chronization

    Haitao Yang, Zaiwei Zhang, Siming Yan, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Yi Zheng, Chandrajit Bajaj, and Qixing Huang. Scene synthesis via uncertainty-driven attribute syn- chronization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5630–5640, 2021. 2

    2021

  42. [50]

    Indoor scene generation from a collection of semantic- segmented depth images

    Ming-Jia Yang, Yu-Xiao Guo, Bin Zhou, and Xin Tong. Indoor scene generation from a collection of semantic- segmented depth images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15203– 15212, 2021. 2

    2021

  43. [51]

    Holodeck: Language guided gen- eration of 3d embodied ai environments

    Yue Yang, Fan-Yun Sun, Luca Weihs, Eli VanderBilt, Al- varo Herrasti, Winson Han, Jiajun Wu, Nick Haber, Ranjay Krishna, Lingjie Liu, et al. Holodeck: Language guided gen- eration of 3d embodied ai environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and ...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Synthesizing open worlds with constraints using locally annealed reversible jump mcmc

    Yi-Ting Yeh, Lingfeng Yang, Matthew Watson, Noah D Goodman, and Pat Hanrahan. Synthesizing open worlds with constraints using locally annealed reversible jump mcmc. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 31(4):1–11, 2012. 2

    2012

  45. [53]

    Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes

    Chandan Yeshwanth, Yueh-Cheng Liu, Matthias Nießner, and Angela Dai. Scannet++: A high-fidelity dataset of 3d indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the International Confer- ence on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023. 6, 9

    2023

  46. [54]

    Make it home: automatic optimization of furniture arrangement

    Lap Fai Yu, Sai Kit Yeung, Chi Keung Tang, Demetri Terzopoulos, Tony F Chan, and Stanley J Osher. Make it home: automatic optimization of furniture arrangement. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)-Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2011, v. 30,(4), July 2011, article no. 86, 30(4),

    2011

  47. [55]

    Commonscenes: Generating commonsense 3d indoor scenes with scene graphs

    Guangyao Zhai, Evin Pınar ¨Ornek, Shun-Cheng Wu, Yan Di, Federico Tombari, Nassir Navab, and Benjamin Busam. Commonscenes: Generating commonsense 3d indoor scenes with scene graphs. Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 36, 2024. 2

    2024

  48. [56]

    Deep generative modeling for scene synthesis via hybrid represen- tations

    Zaiwei Zhang, Zhenpei Yang, Chongyang Ma, Linjie Luo, Alexander Huth, Etienne V ouga, and Qixing Huang. Deep generative modeling for scene synthesis via hybrid represen- tations. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 39(2):1–21,

  49. [57]

    Gala3d: Towards text-to-3d complex scene generation via layout-guided generative gaussian splatting

    Xiaoyu Zhou, Xingjian Ran, Yajiao Xiong, Jinlin He, Zhi- wei Lin, Yongtao Wang, Deqing Sun, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Gala3d: Towards text-to-3d complex scene generation via layout-guided generative gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07207, 2024. 2, 3 ScanEdit: Hierarchi...

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    The unary perceptual study required participants to score each generated scene on two key criteria: Adher- ence to Instruction and Layout Quality

    Additional Perceptual Study Details In our perceptual study, we conducted both a binary and a unary perceptual evaluation to assess the quality of edited 3D scenes. The unary perceptual study required participants to score each generated scene on two key criteria: Adher- ence ...

  51. [59]

    Geometric Evaluation Metric Details 8.1. Collision metric (ColVol) First, we construct a bounding volume hierarchy with depth of 8 for each object in the scene to approximate its shape using bounding boxes at multiple levels (We show in Fig. 7 the visualization of bounding vol...

  52. [60]

    Estimating graph edges with 3D heuristics 9.1. Estimating ‘on top of’ support surface relation We assign each object in the graph nodes N to the closest support surface, provided that the difference between the object’s minimum height and the surface is less than 5 cm. Figure ...

  53. [61]

    {instruction}

    Subgraph identification In the subgraph identification phase, we use an LLM, Φ, to reduce the set of objects to only relevant classes using prompt 10.1. Then, within these selected classes, we re- trieve relevant nodes based on attributes like color, mate- rial, and descriptio...

  54. [62]

    place the chairs to watch TV

    Prompts for planner In the planning phase, we generate first a plan where the LLM Ψ generates a detailed plan while considering differ- ent target locations which define the hypotheses for moving each object, then it selects the best one while taking into ac- count physical pl...

  55. [63]

    The floor itself remains static and untouched, serving as the foundational layer for all placements

    Root Level (Floor) The floor is the base of the environment, meaning all objects are ultimately placed on it. The floor itself remains static and untouched, serving as the foundational layer for all placements

  56. [64]

    Since the door is static like the floor, it does not move or act as a container for other objects

    First Nested Level (Door) The door (ID 12) is placed directly on the floor, meaning it is positioned independently. Since the door is static like the floor, it does not move or act as a container for other objects

  57. [65]

    This means the table’s position is spatially related to the door but not contained within it

    Second Nested Level (Table) The table (ID 10) is placed near the door (ID 12). This means the table’s position is spatially related to the door but not contained within it. Since the table is a movable object, its placement depends on the door’s position

  58. [66]

    The table s surface (ID 0) is an implicit subcomponent of the table and serves as a placement area for smaller objects

    Third Nested Level (Chair & Surface) The chair (ID 50) is placed facing the table (ID 10), making it dependent on the table for its orientation. The table s surface (ID 0) is an implicit subcomponent of the table and serves as a placement area for smaller objects. While the su...

  59. [67]

    Since the surface belongs to the table, the bottle is indirectly dependent on the table s placement

    Fourth Nested Level (Bottle) The bottle (ID 1) is placed on top of the table (specifically, surface ID 0). Since the surface belongs to the table, the bottle is indirectly dependent on the table s placement. Purpose of the Hierarchy The structure enforces a logical dependency ...

  60. [68]

    Your role is to think step by step and seggest new locations, orientations, and constraints for the list of objects

    Prompt for hierarchical object placement You will be given a reference object and a list of objects that you need to place relative to a reference object. Your role is to think step by step and seggest new locations, orientations, and constraints for the list of objects. Each ...

  61. [69]

    Its base coordinate, which represents the 3D coordinate of the object with the minimum elevation (z) in meters and center in x and y

  62. [70]

    Its dimensions which represent the height(following the z axis), the width(following the x axis), the depth(following the y axis) in meters

  63. [71]

    Its orientation, which refers to the orientation of the object around the z axis, in degrees

  64. [72]

    Its surfaces which can be used for placing objects, each surface has an ID where id 0 represents the surface with the highest elevation, the elevation is in meters

  65. [73]

    List of objects that are on top of the object The representation of the List of object to be placed relative to the reference object { Parent_object_name} id { Parent_object_id}:

  66. [74]

    its base coordinate, which represents the 3D coordinate of the object with the minimum elevation (z) in meters and center in x=0 and y=0

  67. [75]

    Its orientation, which refers to the orientation of the object around the z axis, in degrees. The possible list of constraints with respect to the reference object { Parent_object_name} id { Parent_object_id} are: - in_surface : this constraints concerns only instructions that...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.