Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Graph Canvas for Controllable 3D Scene Generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GraphCanvas3D claims that a hierarchical scene graph, iteratively refined by multimodal-LLM feedback on four rendered views, yields controllable 3D scenes and beats five text-to-3D baselines without retraining.

desk verdict A potentially useful MLLM-in-the-loop layout idea, but fake references and an undefined gradient update make this unpublishable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00091 v2 pith:AP5HQ3YN submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CV cs.AIcs.GR

Libin Liu , Shen Chen , Sen Jia , Jingzhe Shi , Zhongyu Jiang , Can Jin , Wu Zongkai , Jenq-Neng Hwang
show 1 more author
Lei Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.GR
keywords 3DscenegenerationgraphmultimodalLLMlayoutoptimizationGaussianSplattingcontrollable4Dtext-to-3D
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

The paper tries to establish that controllable 3D scene generation can be achieved by representing the scene as a hierarchical graph—objects as nodes with position, scale, and rotation, spatial relations as edges—and then optimizing that graph in a loop driven by a multimodal LLM. The LLM inspects four rendered views of a pair of objects, scores how well they match the intended relation, and those scores are converted into gradient-like update signals. Because the graph is the only state, users can add, remove, or move objects by editing the graph and re-running the optimization. The paper reports that this approach outperforms five existing text-to-3D methods on CLIP score, MLLM score, and a 67-participant user study, and that it extends to 4D scenes with temporal changes.

What carries the argument

The operating mechanism is the scene graph together with the edge-level optimization loop. Nodes carry a feature vector (position, scale, rotation); edges are the spatial relation and are optimized one at a time. For each edge, the method renders the two connected objects from four viewpoints, queries the MLLM with a fixed prompt to get five numerical scores, converts scores through a penalty function into a loss, and performs a gradient-descent-like update of the source node's feature vector. Subgraph and graph-level passes repeat the same pattern at larger scope, aggregating locally consistent groups and then adjusting them to keep the entire scene coherent.

What would settle it

A direct test: render a series of layouts that move a lamp in small increments toward the center of a table, and record the MLLM's left-right score each step; if the score does not monotonically approach zero as the lamp approaches the correct position, the gradient signal can be wrong. Alternatively, replace the MLLM's five scores with random values from the same range for the same number of iterations; if the layouts are indistinguishable from those produced with real feedback, the scores are not driving the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spatial coherence in multi-object 3D scenes can be achieved by representing the scene as a hierarchical graph and applying iterative, edge-wise optimization whose loss is provided by a multimodal LLM rather than by a hand-designed objective. Each object is a node with attributes; each spatial relation is a directed edge; edges are optimized by rendering four views, having the MLLM output five scores in [-100, 100] for scale, left-right, front-back, up-down, and yaw rotation, and mapping those scores through a penalty function into a weighted loss. The paper asserts that this MLLM-as-critic loop aligns layouts with human spatial intuition, and that the graph representation makes the framework programmable and extensible: objects can be added, removed, or repositioned, and temporal prompts yield 4D sequences, all without retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The whole optimization rests on the assumption that a multimodal LLM, looking at four rendered views, gives consistent and directionally correct numerical scores for each spatial adjustment, so that 'the lamp is a bit too far left' becomes a reliable gradient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can edit, add, or delete objects in an existing 3D scene through natural-language instructions, with the graph re-optimized to preserve coherence.
  • The framework supports 4D scene generation: prompts describing a transformation produce a sequence of state prompts that drive iterative graph optimization over time.
  • The framework is model-agnostic: ablations show the same graph-based pipeline works with GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, Claude, and LLaMA 3.2 as the language model, with Point-E or 3DGS plus MVDream as the 3D generator.
  • Ablation without edge, subgraph, or graph optimization produces visibly worse layouts, which the paper takes as evidence that each hierarchy level contributes to coherence.
  • Relying on MLLMs to produce interpretable, directional scores means the optimization signal is available off-the-shelf, avoiding task-specific retraining.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If MLLM scores prove reliable, the same graph-scoring loop could serve as a general 3D editing interface for embodied agents, letting a robot re-plan a scene layout from a natural-language request without re-training.
  • The approach's ceiling is set by the MLLM's spatial judgment: four views of a scene may be insufficient for subtle relations or occlusions, so a testable extension is to feed more views or explicit depth images and see whether scores become more consistent.
  • The paper's failure case (objects moving outside the camera view) suggests a practical hardening: dynamically re-aiming cameras or constraining object positions to a view-frustum budget would make the loop more robust, but this is not addressed in the current design.
  • Because the loss is purely relative to what the MLLM considers good, the method could transfer layout priors across room types or object sets simply by changing the scene prompt, with no dataset collection needed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. GraphCanvas3D proposes a graph-structured, LLM/MLLM-driven framework for controllable 3D scene generation. Given a text prompt, an LLM constructs a scene graph whose nodes are object instances and edges are spatial relations; the method then renders multi-view images, queries an MLLM (ChatGPT-4o) for five integer scores per edge, and updates node features via a gradient-descent rule (Eq. 3). The final layout is rendered using Point-E and 3D Gaussian Splatting with MVDream/ControlNet. The paper reports improved CLIP and MLLM scores over five baselines, higher user-study ratings, and demonstrates object editing, addition/deletion, and 4D generation. The abstract and contributions emphasize usability, flexibility, and adaptability without retraining.

Significance. If the method operated as described, the graph-based, retraining-free formulation would be a useful contribution to controllable 3D scene generation, particularly the hierarchical edge/subgraph/graph optimization and the model-flexibility ablation. The paper provides template prompts in the appendix, a qualitative ablation study, and a transparent failure-case discussion, which are positive elements. However, the central optimization step is not mathematically well-defined as written, and the main automated metric is the same type of signal used for optimization, which makes the reported quantitative advantages difficult to interpret. The user study is a useful complement but cannot alone validate the method without a sound algorithmic description.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The gradient update is not well-defined. The loss Lij is a weighted sum of penalty functions f(s^k_ij) applied to integer scores produced by ChatGPT-4o; no differentiable mapping from the continuous node feature fi to these scores is provided. Consequently ∂Lij/∂fi does not exist as a mathematical object without additional assumptions such as finite differences, a surrogate model, or a specified stochastic estimator. The manuscript must either spell out the actual optimization algorithm (e.g., finite-difference step sizes, number of MLLM queries per parameter update, or a concrete mapping from scores to parameter edits) or correct the claim that the layout is obtained by gradient descent. As written, the core loop is not reproducible and the reported results cannot be attributed to the described mechanism.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Table 1] The main automated evaluation metric, 'MLLM Score', is provided by a multimodal language model of the same kind (GPT-4o) that drives the optimization loop in Section 3.3. The system is therefore optimized against the same scoring signal that is used to evaluate it, which can inflate the apparent advantage; the baseline methods are not given any MLLM feedback loop. The paper should report the exact evaluation prompt, compare against an independent scoring model or human judgments with confidence intervals, and ideally measure the correlation between the MLLM score and layout accuracy. Without this, the quantitative superiority claim in Table 1 is not convincing.
  3. [Section 3.6 and Figure 5] The claimed 4D scene generation capability is only described at a high level: 'an iterative process yields a temporal transformation sequence.' No details are given for how intermediate frames are produced, how temporal coherence is enforced, or how the 'state prompts' are turned into a 4D representation. Since 4D generation is listed as a contribution, this is a substantive omission that prevents verification and fair comparison.
  4. [Supplementary Section 8 and Figure 8] The failure-case discussion states that 'objects move outside the camera's capture range during the optimization process, leading to errors in subsequent computations.' This is a known failure mode of the optimization loop, but the paper neither quantifies its frequency nor explains how scenes in the main results were filtered. A spatial optimization method should at least constrain objects to the view frustum or adapt the camera; otherwise the claimed robustness is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The acronym 'MMLM' is used inconsistently; the correct term is MLLM (multimodal large language model).
  2. [References] Several references appear to be placeholders, e.g., [6] 'Jane Doe and John Smith' and [13] 'Alice Lee and Thomas Kim'; also [21] is cited for ChatGPT-4o but the listed reference is to the InstructGPT paper. These must be corrected before publication.
  3. [Section 4 'Implementation details'] The implementation section reports the MVDream guidance scale but does not report the learning rate η, the edge-loss weights w_k, the penalty function f, or the convergence threshold appearing in Eqs. (2)-(3); these values are needed for reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 3] The figure is dense and the labels for the five scores are hard to read; please enlarge the image and explicitly map each score to its corresponding optimization dimension (scale, x/y/z translation, rotation).
  5. [Section 4.3, Table 2] The user study reports mean ratings but does not include confidence intervals, inter-rater agreement, or significance tests; these should be provided to support the claimed superiority.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

MLLM-score superiority is by construction: GPT-4o supplies the edge-optimization loss (Eqs. 2-3) and then serves as the MLLM evaluator in Table 1; CLIP score and user study keep part of the claim independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3 (Eqs. 2-3), Sec. 4.1 (Table 1), Implementation details in Sec. 4]
    "Scoring via LLM Query: ... The LLM outputs a set of scores ... These scores are transformed into a loss value Lij that guides the optimization of the edge ... Lij = Σ wk · f(sk_ij) (2) ... fi ← fi − η ∂Lij/∂fi (3) ... In our experiments, we utilized ChatGPT-4o [21] as both the Large Language Model (LLM) and the Multimodal Language Model (MLLM) ... Additionally, we leverage a Multi-modal Large Language Model (MLLM) to evaluate the semantic consistency between scene descriptions and generated images from multiple perspectives. ..."

    The edge loss Lij in Eq. (2) is built directly from the integer scores returned by ChatGPT-4o under the Sec. 3.3 query, and Eq. (3) updates node features fi to reduce that loss. The same ChatGPT-4o is later used as the 'MLLM' evaluator in Sec. 4.1 that ranks and scores all methods, producing the MLLM scores in Table 1. Thus the reported MLLM-score advantage is the optimizer being measured by its own objective: a method that directly minimizes the evaluator's scores will necessarily appear superior on that metric by construction. This is not external validation but the fitted quantity re-reported as a prediction. The CLIP score and user study are separate evidence, which is why the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: LLM parses the prompt into a graph; per-edge MLLM scores from ChatGPT-4o define the loss Lij (Eq. 2); gradient updates in Eq. 3 move node features to reduce that loss; the optimized scenes are rendered and compared in Table 1 using CLIP and an MLLM score. The circular link is the evaluator: the same ChatGPT-4o that issues the scores being optimized in Sections 3.2-3.3 is, per the implementation details, also the MLLM used in Section 4.1 to 'rank and score all methods'. Reporting the MLLM score of one's own optimized output is the training objective re-reported as a result, not an independent test. I score this as 6 rather than higher because the paper also reports a CLIP score, which is an external model, and a human user study (Table 2); those results are not forced by the MLLM loop and give the central usability claim independent content. Separately, Eq. (3) requires ∂Lij/∂fi although Lij depends on discrete integer MLLM scores with no differentiable map defined; that is a reproducibility and executability gap, not a circularity, so it does not contribute to the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of proprietary MLLM spatial scoring and on several hand-set hyperparameters that are not reported. No new physical or virtual entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • edge loss weights wk = unspecified
    The weighted sum in Equation 2 combines five MLLM scores; values are not given, so the loss is not fully specified.
  • learning rate eta = unspecified
    Used in the gradient update in Equation 3; no value or schedule is reported.
  • penalty function f = unspecified
    The nonlinear transformation from MLLM scores to loss is undefined, despite being central to the optimization.
  • convergence threshold = unspecified
    The stopping criterion in Section 3.3 step 5 is mentioned but never quantified.
  • point cloud upsampling factor = 100,000 points
    Point-E outputs 4,096 points; bilinear interpolation to 100,000 is a hand-chosen enhancement.
  • MVDream guidance scale = 7.5
    Set to preserve object structure; a manual choice reported in the implementation details.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o can reliably construct scene graphs and score spatial relationships from rendered views
    The entire pipeline depends on the MLLM's spatial reasoning, used in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and Prompt 2 in the appendix.
  • domain assumption Four fixed camera views are sufficient for spatial optimization
    Section 3.3 and Figure 3; when objects move outside the camera view the optimization fails, as acknowledged in the supplementary failure cases.
  • domain assumption CLIP score and MLLM score are valid proxies for scene quality and text alignment
    Section 4.1 uses these as quantitative evaluation metrics.
  • domain assumption Bilinear interpolation of Point-E point clouds provides an adequate 3D initialization
    Implementation details; the 4,096-point output is upsampled to 100,000 points.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy functions in Equations 1 and 4 are well-defined and optimizable via gradient descent on LLM scores
    The equations are symbolic; no closed form or derivative is given, and the actual optimization uses discrete MLLM scores.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph Canvas for Controllable 3D Scene Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AP5HQ3YN

@misc{pith2026241200091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph Canvas for Controllable 3D Scene Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AP5HQ3YN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00091}
}
read the original abstract

Spatial intelligence is foundational to AI systems that interact with the physical world, particularly in 3D scene generation and spatial comprehension. Current methodologies for 3D scene generation often rely heavily on predefined datasets, and struggle to adapt dynamically to changing spatial relationships. In this paper, we introduce GraphCanvas3D, a programmable, extensible, and adaptable framework for controllable 3D scene generation. Leveraging in-context learning, GraphCanvas3D enables dynamic adaptability without the need for retraining, supporting flexible and customizable scene creation. Our framework employs hierarchical, graph-driven scene descriptions, representing spatial elements as graph nodes and establishing coherent relationships among objects in 3D environments. Unlike conventional approaches, which are constrained in adaptability and often require predefined input masks or retraining for modifications, GraphCanvas3D allows for seamless object manipulation and scene adjustments on the fly. Additionally, GraphCanvas3D supports 4D scene generation, incorporating temporal dynamics to model changes over time. Experimental results and user studies demonstrate that GraphCanvas3D enhances usability, flexibility, and adaptability for scene generation. Our code and models are available on the project website: https://github.com/ILGLJ/Graph-Canvas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00091 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose GraphCanvas3D for controllable 3D scene generation, employing an optimized graph-based structure to facilitate precise and efficient layout design, such as bedrooms, thereby surpassing alternative methods in spatial control and configurability. Abstract Spatial intelligence is foundational to AI systems that inter￾act with the physical world, particularly in 3D scene gener￾ation and spatial comprehension.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our method. Given a brief scene description, our method first allows the LLMs to construct a graph structure to manage the objects mentioned in the scene prompt and the relationships between them. Additionally, each object in the scene is provided with a richer description and passes through a 3D generative model to create corresponding 3D objects. We capture views of these 3D objects and let the MLLMs a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Edge Optimization Process. When optimizing an edge, we capture the 3D scene from four different viewpoints to obtain images from these perspectives. These four images are then sent along with an optimized prompt into the MLLMs, which analyzes the inherent relationships between objects across the images and provides corresponding scores. These scores serve as references for optimizing this edge. After passing through… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative Comparisons of Text-to-3D Scene Generation Approaches. Our method generates high-quality, interactive multi￾object scenes and complex compositions that closely follow input textual descriptions. In the final column of the figure, we present the graph struct…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experiments of Dynamic Scene Modification. GraphCanvas3D is capable of object editing, adding, deleting and 4D scene generation based on textual descriptions. Combination 1 Combination 2 Combination 3 LLM GPT-4o GPT-3.5 Claude Point-E 3DGS + MVDream Point-E GPT-4o GPT-…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation Study of Model Flexibility. Our method can accomplish text-to-3D scene generation task with various models. We presented three different model selection approaches, all of which achieved promising results. optimization level in achieving coherent scene generat…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Failure Case Example. In rare cases, our method may encounter situations where objects move outside the camera’s cap￾ture range during the optimization process, leading to errors in subsequent computations. within each subgraph. For every node in the graph, the cor￾res…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Detailed Overview of our Method. In our appendix, we provide an extended version of the overview diagram of our method, accompanied by a more detailed explanation. and rare errors in the scoring predictions by the MLLMs. Specifically, like the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SymDiag: Explainable Diagnosis for LLM Reasoning via Neuro-Symbolic Verification

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A neuro-symbolic pipeline that compiles LLM reasoning into Prolog, self-audits translation errors versus reasoning errors, and uses counterexample-style evidence to guide iterative repair.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [6]

    Gala3d: Generative adversar- ial layout arrangement in 3d spaces

    Jane Doe and John Smith. Gala3d: Generative adversar- ial layout arrangement in 3d spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), pages 12345–12353, 2023. 3, 6, 7

    work page 2023

  2. [13]

    Mvdream: Multi-view consis- tent 3d object generation from single-view images

    Alice Lee and Thomas Kim. Mvdream: Multi-view consis- tent 3d object generation from single-view images. In Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ICCV), pages 5678–5685, 2023. 2, 6, 7

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neu- ral radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 5855–5864,

  4. [2]

    Spatialbot: Precise spatial understanding with vision language models

    Wenxiao Cai, Iaroslav Ponomarenko, Jianhao Yuan, Xiaoqi Li, Wankou Yang, Hao Dong, and Bo Zhao. Spatialbot: Precise spatial understanding with vision language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13642, 2024. 2

    arXiv 2024

  5. [3]

    Sculpt3d: Multi-view consistent text-to-3d generation with sparse 3d prior

    Cheng Chen, Xiaofeng Yang, Fan Yang, Chengzeng Feng, Zhoujie Fu, Chuan-Sheng Foo, Guosheng Lin, and Fayao Liu. Sculpt3d: Multi-view consistent text-to-3d generation with sparse 3d prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10228–10237, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    Estimates of absolute branching fractions for the $f_0(1710)$ decays and radiative transitions $\psi(2S)\to\gamma f_0(1710)$ and $\Upsilon(1S)\to\gamma f_0(1710)$

    Jiahao Chen, Xiao Lin, Yuqi Liu, and Feng Zhang. Two- stage 3dgs: Geometry optimization and texture refinement for gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03472 ,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [5]

    Text-to-3d using gaussian splatting

    Zilong Chen, Feng Wang, Yikai Wang, and Huaping Liu. Text-to-3d using gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21401–21412, 2024. 7

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Delay-sensitive Task Offloading in Vehicular Fog Computing-Assisted Platoons

    Jiawei Fang, Sheng Liu, Yue Zhou, and Feng Zhang. 3d editing with language: A new paradigm for text-to-3d gener- ation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10234, 2023. 3

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    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. 2, 3, 7

    2024

  2. [9]

    Layout- transformer: Layout generation and completion with self- attention

    Kamal Gupta, Justin Lazarow, Alessandro Achille, Larry S Davis, Vijay Mahadevan, and Abhinav Shrivastava. Layout- transformer: Layout generation and completion with self- attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1004–1014, 2021. 2

    2021

  3. [10]

    Dreamtime: An improved optimiza- tion strategy for text-to-3d content creation

    Yukun Huang, Jianan Wang, Yukai Shi, Xianbiao Qi, Zheng- Jun Zha, and Lei Zhang. Dreamtime: An improved optimiza- tion strategy for text-to-3d content creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12422, 2023. 7

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Geoai: spatially explicit arti- ficial intelligence techniques for geographic knowledge dis- covery and beyond, 2020

    Krzysztof Janowicz, Song Gao, Grant McKenzie, Yingjie Hu, and Budhendra Bhaduri. Geoai: spatially explicit arti- ficial intelligence techniques for geographic knowledge dis- covery and beyond, 2020. 2

    2020

  5. [12]

    3d gaussian splatting for efficient scene rep- resentation

    Bernhard Kerbl, Wolfgang Wraber, Bernhard Egger, and An- dreas Lugmayr. 3d gaussian splatting for efficient scene rep- resentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08354, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gaussiandiffusion: A variational approach to 3d gaussian splatting with structured noise

    Xiaohui Li, Mingchao Huang, Zhen Shen, and Lingyu Wang. Gaussiandiffusion: A variational approach to 3d gaussian splatting with structured noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03415, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Diffusion-based text-to-point models for 3d gaussian splat- ting

    Wei Liang, Ping Zhou, Xiaofei Chen, and Dongdong Wu. Diffusion-based text-to-point models for 3d gaussian splat- ting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06271, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Deqing Sun, Jason Baldridge, Alexei A Efros, Ali Farhadi, and Jong-Chul Park. Magic3d: High-resolution text-to-3d content creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10832, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Componerf: Customizable layouts for com- positional 3d generation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Yujie Liu, Di Fang, Wang Lin, and Fangzhou Zhou. Componerf: Customizable layouts for com- positional 3d generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09134,

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering

    Tao Lu, Mulin Yu, Linning Xu, Yuanbo Xiangli, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 20654–20664, 2024. 2

    2024

  11. [19]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM , 65(1):99–106, 2021. 2

    2021

  12. [20]

    Point-e: A system for generat- ing 3d point clouds from complex prompts

    Alex Nichol, Heewoo Jun, Prafulla Dhariwal, Pamela Mishkin, and Mark Chen. Point-e: A system for generat- ing 3d point clouds from complex prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751, 2022. 6

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Car- roll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 35:...

    2022

  14. [22]

    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,

  15. [23]

    Comp3d: Compositional text-to-3d generation with nerf-based layouts

    Brian Po and Gordon Wetzstein. Comp3d: Compositional text-to-3d generation with nerf-based layouts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04567, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Milden- hall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14988, 2022. 2, 3, 7 9

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Avatar simulation using large language models

    Wei Ren, Tian Chen, Mingliang Liu, and Hui Zhang. Avatar simulation using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06789, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Pro- cedural 3d modeling with large language models

    Yuan Sun, Xiaohui Zhang, Ji Liu, and Yanping Zhao. Pro- cedural 3d modeling with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04521, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Dreamgaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for effi- cient 3d content creation

    Jiaxiang Tang, Jiawei Ren, Hang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, and Gang Zeng. Dreamgaussian: Generative gaussian splatting for effi- cient 3d content creation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16653,

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gaussian splat- ting in two stages for consistent 3d generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04561, 2023

    Wei Tang, Ling Sun, Tao Jin, and Ming Li. Gaussian splat- ting in two stages for consistent 3d generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04561, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A systematic review of geospatial location em- bedding approaches in large language models: A path to spa- tial ai systems, 2024

    Sean Tucker. A systematic review of geospatial location em- bedding approaches in large language models: A path to spa- tial ai systems, 2024. 2

    2024

  22. [30]

    Sparsenerf: Distilling depth ranking for few-shot novel view synthesis

    Guangcong Wang, Zhaoxi Chen, Chen Change Loy, and Zi- wei Liu. Sparsenerf: Distilling depth ranking for few-shot novel view synthesis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9065–9076,

  23. [31]

    Prolificdreamer: High- quality 3d generation via explicit shape priors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03416, 2023

    Hao Wang, Mingming Chen, Qing Sun, Yu Zhang, Jay Lee, Zhiqiang Cheng, and Ting Zhang. Prolificdreamer: High- quality 3d generation via explicit shape priors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03416, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Spatial computing: Concept, applications, challenges and fu- ture directions, 2024

    Gokul Yenduri, Ramalingam M, Praveen Kumar Reddy Maddikunta, Thippa Reddy Gadekallu, Rutvij H Jhaveri, Ajay Bandi, Junxin Chen, Wei Wang, Adarsh Arunkumar Shirawalmath, Raghav Ravishankar, and Weizheng Wang. Spatial computing: Concept, applications, challenges and fu- ture dir...

    2024

  25. [33]

    3dgs: Gaussian splatting with point cloud ini- tialization for high-quality text-to-3d

    Tianyu Yi, Yiwei Chen, Fei Liu, Tao Wang, and Wenbo Zhang. 3dgs: Gaussian splatting with point cloud ini- tialization for high-quality text-to-3d. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01267, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gaussian- dreamer: Fast generation from text to 3d gaussian splatting with point cloud priors

    Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Guanjun Wu, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang. Gaussian- dreamer: Fast generation from text to 3d gaussian splatting with point cloud priors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08529 ,

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splat- ting

    Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Binbin Huang, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger. Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splat- ting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 19447–19456,

  28. [36]

    Gaussiancube: Structuring gaussian splatting using opti- mal transport for 3d generative modeling

    Bowen Zhang, Yiji Cheng, Jiaolong Yang, Chunyu Wang, Feng Zhao, Yansong Tang, Dong Chen, and Baining Guo. Gaussiancube: Structuring gaussian splatting using opti- mal transport for 3d generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19655, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion mod- els

    Lvmin Zhang, Mane Wu, Junyan Zhu, Richard Zhang, He Zhang, Yijun Wang, Xiaogang Qi, and Xiaowei Zhang. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05543, 2023. 6

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Scenewiz3d: Intelligent 3d scene composition via large lan- guage models

    Xinyu Zhang, Ruibo Xu, Fei Li, Li-Yi Chang, and Bo Wen. Scenewiz3d: Intelligent 3d scene composition via large lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10245, 2023. 3

    2023

  31. [39]

    Layout-your-3d: Controllable and precise 3d generation with 2d blueprint

    Junwei Zhou, Xueting Li, Lu Qi, and Ming-Hsuan Yang. Layout-your-3d: Controllable and precise 3d generation with 2d blueprint. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15391, 2024. 2 10 Graph Canvas for Controllable 3D Scene Generation Supplementary Material To provide a comprehensive unders...

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    In the following paragraphs, each subsection of the methods will be further elaborated in greater detail

    Optimized Processing We provide an expanded explanation of the methodology, as illustrated in the Figure 9. In the following paragraphs, each subsection of the methods will be further elaborated in greater detail. Graph Construction. We designed Prompt 1 (shown in Table 3) to ...

  33. [41]

    nodes = [obj 1, obj 2, obj 3, ...], node-prompts = [prompt of obj 1, prompt of obj 2 , prompt of obj 3]

    Failure Cases In our experiments, we identified occasional cases where our method encountered challenges during various stages of the optimization process. These issues were primarily due to ambiguities or inconsistencies in the input descriptions 1 Nodes Prompts Scene Descrip...

  34. [42]

    The optimized objects: X1. 2. Other objects: X2. 3. entire scene Xall. The position, rotation, and scale of X2 are correct in the scene. There might be some incorrect scale, location, and rotation of X1, which are unlikely to form a realistic layout in a scene satisfying Xall ...

  35. [43]

    If X1 in the scene is too big, give a high positive score

    First score is about the scale of X1: If X1 in the scene is at an appropriate size, give a score close to zero. If X1 in the scene is too big, give a high positive score. IfX1 in the scene is too small, give a high negative score

  36. [44]

    If X1 is too close to X2, give a high positive score

    Second score is about X1’s location in the left-and-right direction: (You must not consider the side view image to rate the score; consider the x-axis in both the front-view and top-down view.) If X1 in the scene is at an appropriate location, give a score close to zero. If X1...

  37. [45]

    If X1 is too close to X2, give a high positive score

    Third score is about X1’s location in the forward-and-backward direction: (You must not consider the front-view image to rate the score; consider the x-axis in the side-view and the y-axis in the top-down view.) If X1 in the scene is at an appropriate location, give a score cl...

  38. [46]

    If X1 is too close to X2, give a high positive score

    Fourth score is about X1’s location in the up-and-down direction: (You must not consider the top- down view to rate this score; consider the y-axis in both the front-view and side-view.) If X1 in the scene is at an appropriate location, give a score close to zero. If X1 is too...

  39. [47]

    If X1 should rotate clockwise, give a positive score

    Fifth score is about X1’s yaw rotation: (You should consider the top-view image.) If X1 in the scene is at an appropriate rotation, give a score close to zero. If X1 should rotate clockwise, give a positive score. If X1 should rotate counterclockwise, give a negative score. Th...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.