In this paper, we study physically grounded articulated 3D asset generation---moving the goal from reproducing how objects look to capturing how they move and function. Inspired by the literature on procedural and agentic generation, we present Artisan, a system that extends the latest method Articraft by introducing a multi-agent pipeline with physical simulation feedback, enabling comprehensive attributes beyond geometry, appearance, and physically plausible articulation, such as collision-free motion, stability under gravity, and accurate mass and material properties. Furthermore, we construct a unified benchmark spanning four key aspects: spatial fidelity, physical plausibility, downstream task performance, and overall quality. The benchmark encompasses 100 reference assets from ArtVIP and LightWheel, 50 stability prompts, and 50 ABO objects with reference masses, with protocols evaluating various metrics. Through extensive evaluation of more than 10 representative models, Artisan achieves competitive spatial fidelity while attaining the lowest collision rates and highest stability rates among the evaluated methods. Together, our system and benchmark establish insights for advancing 3D generation towards physically plausible, functionally usable assets.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Physically grounded articulated 3D objects generated by Artisan (assembled into scenes). Orange and blue annotations indicate revolute and prismatic axes, respectively. Insets list the physical attributes composition of individual parts for exampled objects. Zoom in for more details .
Figure 2: The staged pipeline of the three agents: Design Agent, Coding Agent, and Review Agent.
Figure 3: Illustrations of the six families of parameterized standard parts.
Method
Appearance
Rest-Pose Geometry
Articulated Geometry
IoU ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
CLIP ↑
oCD ↓
pCD ↓
pIoU ↑
oCD ↓
pCD ↓
pIoU ↑
Instruct-Particulate
0.6843
0.8581
17.12
0.2705
0.9167
0.0027
0.1143
0.2436
0.0010
0.1132
0.2732
PhysX-Anything
0.5259
0.8457
15.26
0.3899
0.8474
0.0098
0.2703
0.0965
0.0123
0.2989
0.0920
URDF-Anything+
0.6294
0.8598
16.11
0.3819
0.8319
0.0062
0.2913
0.1262
0.0068
0.3034
0.1236
Articulate-Anything
0.6054
0.8197
14.44
0.3893
0.8444
0.0087
0.1923
0.1223
0.0097
0.2076
0.1254
Articraft (GPT-5.5)
0.7195
0.8580
17.48
0.2781
0.9033
0.0026
0.0211
0.2795
0.0040
0.0235
0.2731
Table 1: Spatial fidelity scores on ArtVIP ( Jin et al., 2026 ) , reported in the rest and the open state. For simplicity, we only report the up-to-date results of Articraft and Codex, while the full results are available in Table 7 . Bold marks the best value and underline marks the second-best value per metric.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of articulated assets generated by different models. Orange rods indicate revolute axes; blue arrows indicate prismatic directions.
Method
Collision
Stability
Material
Mass
Single ↓
Double ↓
Multiple ↓
Rest ↑
Open ↑
Base color ↑
Metallic ↑
Roughness ↑
MnRE ↑
ADE (kg) ↓
APE ↓
NeRF2Physics
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
0.601
10.78
0.509
PUGS
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
0.412
44.50
3.016
Instruct-Particulate
70.4
90.4
98.7
68%
42%
12.00
18.02
10.40
−
−
−
PhysX-Anything
58.4
77.6
81.3
74%
22%
10.06
−
−
0.302
198.07
19.292
URDF-Anything+
84.6
99.3
100.0
64%
48%
−
−
−
−
−
−
Table 2: Physical attribute scores on ArtVIP ( Jin et al., 2026 ) ( Collision , Material ), our own dataset ( Stability ), and ABO-500 ( Collins et al., 2022 ) ( Mass ). The full results are available in Table 9 . Bold marks the best value and underline marks the second-best value per metric. − indicates an unavailable result due to the problem scope of each method.
Figure 5: Qualitative collision and stability comparisons. (a) Visualization of Collision. Red and blue denote the major intersected part pair. Artisan is clean, whereas the other baselines involve collisions between components. (b) Visualization of stability under gravity. Artisan remains upright, whereas all five baselines topple after gravity is applied.
Assets
RoboTwin
RoboCasa
Native only
80%
39%
Articraft only
60%
5%
Artisan only
63%
27%
Native + Artisan
84%
43%
Table 3: Downstream robotic evaluation of articulated assets. (a) Task success rate (%) of π0.5 ( Black et al., 2025 ) fine-tuned with different training-asset compositions, averaged over 3 RoboTwin 2.0 ( Chen et al., 2026 ) tasks and 8 RoboCasa365 ( Nasiriany et al., 2026 ) tasks. We evaluate all policies on held-out native assets not seen during fine-tuning. (b) Percentage of all assets that pass the qualification test (Round 1) and support successful demonstration generation (Round 2).
Figure 6: Human evaluation results. Each bar stacks the rates at which a method is ranked first, second, and third; labels give each segment’s rate.
Appendix figures & tables24 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Family
Tool(s)
C
R
Purpose
Edit
write_file , replace
✓
Create or revise the asset program and geometry scripts.
write_test , edit_test
✓
Create or revise independent tests against the blueprint.
Execute
run_blender
✓
Execute a geometry script and return the mesh and its diagnostics.
compile_model
✓
Build the asset and return structural, geometric, and test feedback.
run_tests
✓
Run the Review Agent’s tests and return failures or errors.
Inspect
probe_model
✓
✓
Query part and joint structure or geometric measurements.
Appendix
Table 4: Tools available to the Coding (C) and Review (R) Agents. The Coding Agent edits the asset program; the Review Agent edits only its own tests.
Figure 7: Composition of the spatial-fidelity evaluation subsets. (a) The LightWheel subset contains 50 objects across 14 categories, but all for kitchen-appliance categories. (b) The ArtVIP subset contains 50 objects across 9 large categories with 37 subcategories. (c) The ArtVIP objects have 1–13 movable joints each, with fixed joints excluded.
Table 5: The 50 ArtVIP objects used for evaluation. Names follow the source asset identifiers.
Figure 8: Composition of the stability dataset. Left: The 50 objects cover 9 destabilization mechanisms. Right: The objects span 10 categories defined by their primary use.
Figure 9: Composition of the mass-evaluation dataset. Left: The ground-truth masses range from 0.086 to 205 kg. Right: The 50 objects span 12 categories grouped by primary use.
ASIN
Category
Mass (kg)
ASIN
Category
Mass (kg)
B006ZT4VA0
tablet stand
0.086
B07TFQM3JZ
utility cart
10.478
B082L6NQZ7
speaker wall mount
0.617
B084W2S628
barstool
10.977
B075HXHKVF
jewelry box
0.717
B075X463J2
ottoman
12.247
B00WRDS8H0
laptop stand
1.102
B073GGGF7H
storage bench
17.236
B0742D9X4G
table lamp
1.361
B082L28P18
file cabinet
18.144
B07MSYK43S
projector ceiling bracket
1.383
B007IHF36E
sideboard
19.999
Appendix
Table 6: The 50 ABO objects used for mass evaluation, ordered by ground-truth mass.
Figure 10: User study interface. (a) Closed- and open-state renders of the six anonymized candidates from a shared viewpoint, next to the reference images and text prompt; the right panel lists the three criteria and collects the top-three ranking. (b) The same page on the 3D interaction tab, cropped to the interaction area. Each candidate is loaded into an in-browser MuJoCo viewer, where the participant drags a part (red arrow: applied force); buttons below the viewer locate the movable parts, and the bottom bar tracks each candidate’s interactions. (c) The same moment with Color by part enabled, which draws each rigid body in its own color to reveal the part decomposition.
Method
Appearance
Rest-Pose Geometry
Articulated Geometry
IoU ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
CLIP ↑
oCD ↓
pCD ↓
pIoU ↑
oCD ↓
pCD ↓
pIoU ↑
Instruct-Particulate
0.6843
0.8581
17.12
0.2705
0.9167
0.0027
0.1143
0.2436
0.0010
0.1132
0.2732
PhysX-Anything
0.5259
0.8457
15.26
0.3899
0.8474
0.0098
0.2703
0.0965
0.0123
0.2989
0.0920
URDF-Anything+
0.6294
0.8598
16.11
0.3819
0.8319
0.0062
0.2913
0.1262
0.0068
0.3034
0.1236
Articulate-Anything
0.6054
0.8197
14.44
0.3893
0.8444
0.0087
0.1923
0.1223
0.0097
0.2076
0.1254
Articraft (GPT-5.5)
0.7195
0.8580
17.48
0.2781
0.9033
0.0026
0.0211
0.2795
0.0040
0.0235
0.2731
Appendix
Table 7: Complete spatial fidelity results on ArtVIP . Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best values per metric, including ties at the reported precision.
Method
Appearance
Rest-Pose Geometry
Articulated Geometry
IoU ↑
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
CLIP ↑
oCD ↓
pCD ↓
pIoU ↑
oCD ↓
pCD ↓
pIoU ↑
Instruct-Particulate
0.8517
0.9250
20.80
0.1085
0.9347
0.0039
0.0845
0.2631
0.0033
0.0938
0.2890
PhysX-Anything
0.6225
0.9021
16.69
0.2158
0.8948
0.0082
0.1743
0.0986
0.0163
0.1967
0.0762
URDF-Anything+
0.7126
0.9145
16.17
0.2455
0.8368
0.0063
0.3620
0.1200
0.0087
0.3728
0.1144
Articulate-Anything
0.6120
0.9066
16.45
0.2306
0.8596
0.0103
0.1627
0.1098
0.0149
0.1928
0.0924
Articraft (GPT-5.5)
0.7891
0.9110
18.49
0.1534
0.9117
0.0019
0.0516
0.2050
0.0041
0.0635
0.1726
Appendix
Table 8: Complete spatial fidelity results on LightWheel . Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best values per metric.
Method
Collision (%)
Stability
Material (dB)
Mass
ArtVIP
LightWheel
Rest ↑
Open ↑
Base color ↑
Metallic ↑
Roughness ↑
MnRE ↑
ADE (kg) ↓
APE ↓
Single ↓
Double ↓
Multi. ↓
Single ↓
Double ↓
Multi. ↓
NeRF2Physics
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
0.601
10.78
0.509
PUGS
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
0.412
44.50
3.016
Instruct-Particulate
70.4
90.4
98.7
45.1
66.2
80.6
68%
42%
12.00
18.02
10.40
−
−
−
PhysX-Anything
58.4
77.6
81.3
58.6
86.5
96.3
74%
22%
10.06
−
−
0.302
198.07
19.292
Appendix
Table 9: Complete physical attribute results . Collision rates are reported on ArtVIP and LightWheel; direct material PSNR uses ArtVIP, stability our stability dataset, and mass uses the ABO subset. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best values per metric; − denotes unavailable results.
Method
Base color ↑
Metallic ↑
Roughness ↑
Instruct-Particulate
10.07
18.14
10.54
PhysX-Anything
8.84
−
−
Articulate-Anything
7.55
−
−
Articraft (GPT-5.5)
11.15
−
−
Articraft (GPT-5.6-Sol)
11.36
−
−
Articraft (GPT-6-Astra)
13.24
−
−
Appendix
Table 10: Material transfer evaluation on ArtVIP . PSNR (dB) uses predicted materials transferred to ground-truth geometry. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best scores; − denotes unavailable results due to the problem scope of methods.
Variant
Appearance
Geometry
Parts
Collision (%)
Stability
Mass
PSNR ↑
CLIP ↑
oCD ↓
pCD ↓
pIoU ↑
Np
Single ↓
Double ↓
Multi. ↓
Rest ↑
Open ↑
MnRE ↑
ADE ↓
APE ↓
w/o Design
17.84
0.9130
0.0035
0.0195
0.2788
5.82
1.0
3.5
15.1
96%
96%
0.630
9.57
0.710
w/o Review
17.95
0.9128
0.0030
0.0211
0.2951
6.50
3.1
5.8
11.8
96%
94%
0.640
8.44
0.736
w/o Physics
17.90
0.9091
0.0030
0.0199
0.2952
6.66
35.7
54.1
73.2
90%
90%
0.649
7.68
0.628
Full
17.63
0.9150
0.0022
0.0214
0.2993
6.78
1.9
4.8
16.4
98%
96%
0.670
8.25
0.566
Appendix
Table 11: Component ablations with GPT-5.6-Sol . Each variant removes the Design Agent, Review Agent, or physical validation. Appearance, geometry, collision, and mean part count are measured on ArtVIP; stability and mass use their respective datasets. Geometry scores average the rest and open states, and mass ADE is in kilograms. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best scores per metric; part count is descriptive.
Figure 11: Additional qualitative comparisons on the ArtVIP and LightWheel benchmarks.
Figure 12: Additional visualizations of stability under gravity, each shown at rest and after ten seconds in MuJoCo. A green frame marks an asset that passes the stability check and a red frame one that does not.
Figure 13: Additional collision comparisons. Red and blue highlight the most severely interpenetrating pair of parts, enlarged in the lower-right inset.
Method
Model
Avg. cost (USD)
Avg. time (min)
Ours ( Artisan )
GPT-5.6-Sol
6.03
34.7
Ours ( Artisan )
GPT-6-Astra
5.79
34.3
Ours ( Artisan )
GPT-5.5
7.35
33.9
Vanilla Codex
GPT-5.6-Sol
0.33
9.9
Vanilla Codex
GPT-6-Astra
1.07
6.3
Vanilla Codex
GPT-5.5
0.51
1.9
Appendix
Table 12: Average API cost and generation time per asset.
Figure 14: API cost and generation time breakdown of Artisan . The left three pies show API cost shares of the Design, Coding, and Review Agents; the right three show generation time shares, including the simulator.
Task
Train
Test
Artisan
Train + Artisan
Articraft
OpenMicrowave
1
1
6
7
3
OpenLaptop
9
2
9
18
4
TurnSwitch
6
2
6
12
6
Total
16
5
21
37
13
Appendix
Table 13: Asset split in each RoboTwin 2.0 task. Native assets are split into disjoint training and held-out test sets. Artisan and Articraft denote generated assets that are physically stable and can be used for downstream evaluation and policy training.
Task
Train
Artisan
Articraft
OpenMicrowave
1/1
6/6
3/6
OpenLaptop
9/9
9/9
4/9
TurnSwitch
6/6
6/6
6/6
Appendix
Table 14: Round 2 qualification test results on RoboTwin 2.0. Number of assets that pass the qualification test and are successful in generating demonstrations on the RoboTwin 2.0 tasks, for the native assets, the assets generated by Artisan , and the assets generated by Articraft.
Task
Train
Train + Artisan
Artisan
Articraft
Open Microwave
64%
78%
40%
46%
Open Laptop
98%
97%
97%
86%
Turn Switch
78%
76%
53%
49%
Average
80%
84%
63%
60%
Appendix
Table 15: Task execution success rate (%) of π0.5 on RoboTwin 2.0. All policies are evaluated on held-out native test assets unseen during training. Native, Ours , Native + Ours , and Articraft denote policies fine-tuned on demonstrations collected from the corresponding asset sets. Higher is better.
Task
Train
Test
Artisan
Train + Artisan
Articraft
OpenElectricKettleLid
8
9
10
18
0
OpenFridgeDrawer
5
11
1
6
0
OpenStandMixerHead
9
12
8
17
0
OpenToasterOvenDoor
6
5
3
9
1
SlideDishwasherRack
10
4
1
11
0
SlideOvenRack
3
9
2
5
0
Appendix
Table 16: Asset split in each RoboCasa365 task. Native assets are split into disjoint training and held-out test sets. Artisan and Articraft denote generated assets physically able to be used for downstream evaluation and policy training. Each training asset contributes 50 demonstration episodes.
Task
Train
Artisan
Articraft
OpenElectricKettleLid
8/10
10/10
0/10
OpenFridgeDrawer
5/10
1/10
0/10
OpenStandMixerHead
9/10
8/10
0/10
OpenToasterOvenDoor
6/10
3/10
1/10
SlideDishwasherRack
10/10
1/10
0/10
SlideOvenRack
3/10
2/10
0/10
Appendix
Table 17: Round 2 qualification test results on RoboCasa365. Number of assets that pass the qualification test and are successful in generating demonstrations on the RoboCasa365 tasks, for the native assets, the assets generated by Artisan , and the assets generated by Articraft.
Task
Train
Train + Artisan
Artisan
Articraft
OpenElectricKettleLid
11%
12%
14%
0%
OpenFridgeDrawer
18%
23%
4%
0%
OpenStandMixerHead
17%
29%
12%
0%
OpenToasterOvenDoor
30%
35%
21%
23%
SlideDishwasherRack
6%
13%
72%
0%
SlideOvenRack
87%
84%
59%
0%
Appendix
Table 18: Task execution success rate (%) of π0.5 on RoboCasa365. All policies are evaluated on the held-out native test assets listed in Table 16 , with 50 evaluation rollouts per test asset. Native, Native + Artisan , Artisan , and Articraft denote policies fine-tuned on demonstrations collected from the corresponding asset sets. For tasks with no qualified training assets, we assign a success rate of 0% when computing the benchmark average. Higher is better.
Figure 15: Close-up comparison of electric kettle buttons. Top: The native asset uses a sliding button in the human demonstration. Bottom: The generated asset uses a hinged button, which is plausible but prevents successful demonstration transfer with MimicGen.
A bottleneck in learning to understand articulated 3D objects is the lack of large and diverse datasets. In this paper, we propose to leverage large language models (LLMs) to close this gap and generate articulated assets at scale. We reduce the problem of generating an articulated 3D asset to that of writing a program that builds it. We then introduce a new agentic system, Articraft, that writes such programs automatically. We design a programmatic interface and harness to help the LLM do so effectively. The LLM writes code against a domain-specific SDK for defining parts, composing geometry, specifying joints, and writing tests to validate the resulting assets. The harness exposes a restricted workspace and interface to the LLM, validates the resulting assets, and returns structured feedback. In this way, the LLM is not distracted by details such as authoring a URDF file or managing a complex software environment. We show that this produces higher-quality assets than both state-of-the-art articulated-asset generators and general-purpose coding agents. Using Articraft, we build Articraft-10K, a curated dataset of over 10K articulated assets spanning 245 categories, and show its utility both for training models of articulated assets and in downstream applications such as robotics simulation and virtual reality.
Matt Zhou, Ruining Li, Xiaoyang Lyu +6
University of Cambridge · University of Oxford · Nanyang Technological University
Physically grounded 3D assets are increasingly important for embodied AI and robotic simulation. However, most existing 3D assets lack unified physical semantics, including articulation semantics and intrinsic physical properties, required for realistic interaction. Current approaches either treat these semantics independently or rely on canonicalized object structures, limiting robustness across heterogeneous 3D assets. We present UniPhys, a scalable framework for automatically transforming raw 3D assets into simulation-ready assets with unified physical semantics. Based on UniPhys, we construct UniPhys-40K, a large-scale physically grounded dataset, together with UniPhys-Bench, a carefully verified benchmark for unified physical grounding evaluation. We further introduce UniPhysGen, a unified physical grounding model that jointly reasons over articulation semantics and intrinsic physical properties. UniPhysGen incorporates geometry-robust articulation grounding to mitigate geometric shortcut bias under heterogeneous part decompositions. Extensive experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art performance across articulation grounding and intrinsic physical property estimation tasks, while the resulting assets can be directly deployed in robotic simulation environments for realistic physical interaction. Our code and dataset will be available at https://github.com/breezexian/UniPhysGen.
Xian Li, Rong Wei, Lujie Yang +6
Zhejiang University · Manycore Tech Inc. · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
We present Artiverse, a diverse and physically grounded dataset of high-quality articulated 3D objects designed for realistic functional modeling and simulation. Artiverse contains 5.4K human-authored objects across a broad range of 88 categories, aggregated from multiple 3D static repositories. Objects are annotated with functional parts, interior structures, realistic kinematic relationships and articulated joints including multi-DoF joints, and physical attributes such as metric scale, material, and mass. We develop a semi-automated annotation pipeline that combines few-shot segmentation, geometric reasoning, and multi-stage human verification to achieve high-quality and efficient annotation, reducing manual annotation time by over 30%. We demonstrate the value of Artiverse on tasks of part mobility analysis, articulated object generation, and physics-based interaction. Artiverse provides a data resource to advance functional understanding for articulated objects.
Denys Iliash, Jiayi Liu, Egor Fokin +4
Simon Fraser University · 2Canada-CIFAR AI Chair, Amii