GALA: Geometry-Aware Language Model for Controllable Object Arrangement
Organizations: University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China · Tencent, Shenzhen, China · Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
Abstract
Reasoning about fine-grained placement constraints, such as support and containment, is essential for realistic 3D scene creation. It remains a significant challenge for existing methods that rely on simplified object representations like oriented bounding box (OBB), which are blind to the detailed geometry. To address this limitation, we introduce GALA, a geometry-aware language model with explicit point cloud perception for controllable object placement. Our model performs autoregressively by predicting the 6D pose of one target object at a time conditioned on the scene context and placement instruction. We utilize a two-stage training strategy: the first stage aligns geometric and textual modalities through pretraining tasks, and the second stage fine-tunes the model for placement. To facilitate this task, we also curate a multi-source scene dataset covering diverse room types and fine-grained furniture arrangements, which will be open-sourced for community benefit. Experiments on our benchmark show our model significantly outperforms baselines without explicit geometric reasoning. We further develop a multi-stage plan-place-verify agent pipeline that uses the model for text-driven scene generation. Project Page: https://xccelephant.github.io/paper/gala/
Figures & tables
| Method | Input | Within. | Instruction. | Float. | Support. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATISS | OBB+Cat. | – | – | 0.93% | 99.20% |
| ReSpace | OBB+Cat. | – | – | 5.79% | 94.20% |
| LayoutVLM | OBB+Instr. | 10.96% | 37.71% | 17.05% | 82.91% |
| GPT-OSS-120B | OBB+Instr. | 22.53% | 42.29% | 7.64% | 93.54% |
| Ours (0.7B) | PC+Instr. | 65.62% | 78.59% | 4.63% | 96.03% |
| Table 2. User-study scores from 30 participants. Dashes denote unavailable single-object scores for methods without instruction input. Method Single-object placement Whole-scene result Physical. Instruction. Physical. Aesthetics. ATISS – – 1.9 1.9 ReSpace – – 2.7 2.9 LayoutVLM 1.9 2.0 3.0 3.2 GPT-OSS-120B 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 Ours (0.7B) 4.5 4.5 3.9 4.1 | Table 3. Controlled ablations on the held-out test split. Within / Instruction report valid rates on containment/all samples. Arrows show preferred directions; bold/underlined values mark the best/second-best results. Method Within. Instruction. Float. Support. w/o point cloud 62.40% 78.81% 5.19% 95.35% w/o pretraining 62.69% 78.37% 5.20% 95.42% w/o artist scenes 60.32% 76.69% 5.02% 95.88% Full method 65.62% 78.59% 4.63% 96.03% |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Relation type | Relation | Geometric condition | Thresholds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scene boundary | against east wall against west wall against north wall against south wall | The object is floor-supported ( ). The distance from to the corresponding boundary edge is below . Directional wall names are assigned from the edge outward normal. | |
| Scene boundary | at northeast corner at northwest corner at southeast corner at southwest corner | The object is floor-supported and its footprint is within the wall threshold of two adjacent convex boundary edges. The corner name is determined from the two outward normals, with a centroid-based quadrant fallback for irregular boundaries. | |
| Scene region | in front region in back region in left region in right region in center region | Used when no wall or corner relation is emitted. The object center is compared with the scene AABB center: front/back use the sign of the Y offset and left/right use the sign of the X offset. A directional region requires the corresponding offset magnitude to exceed times the scene depth or width; otherwise the object is in the center region. | |
| Horizontal proximity | next to | The footprint distance satisfies . Horizontal relations are suppressed when an on , under , or within relation already holds, and require compatible bottom heights: , where . | |
| Horizontal direction | left right in front behind | The footprint distance satisfies and the same height and vertical-relation exclusions as above hold. The relation is selected by : left for , right for , in front for , and behind for . | |
| Support | on | The target center projected to XY lies inside , and the target bottom is close to the reference top: . |
| Method | Within. | Instruction. | Floating. | Support. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PlaceIt3D | 0.32% | 1.39% | 67.53% | 35.96% |
| DeepSeek-V4-Flash | 11.53% | 30.02% | 17.89% | 84.75% |
| Qwen3.5-397B-A17B | 17.35% | 37.28% | 12.87% | 89.11% |
| Ours (0.7B) | 65.62% | 78.59% | 4.63% | 96.03% |
| Method | Within. | Instruction. | Floating. | Support. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nano-Banana + FoundationPose | 12.82% | 15.00% | 69.00% | 31.21% |
| Ours | 66.67% | 79.00% | 6.00% | 92.02% |
| Test subset | Method | Within. | Instruction. | Float. | Support. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| high-quality | Full method | 52.82 | 71.86 | 10.34 | 91.41 |
| w/o high-quality | 39.47 | 64.59 | 13.34 | 89.56 | |
| 3D-FRONT & SpatialLM-PCG | Full method | 68.65 | 80.06 | 3.38 | 97.05 |
| w/o high-quality | 65.44 | 79.57 | 3.17 | 97.25 |
| Metric | w/ point cloud | w/o point cloud |
|---|---|---|
| Height error (m) | 0.0747 | 0.0868 |
| User-study score (1–5) | 4.14 | 1.91 |
| Group | Within. | Floating. | Support. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seen container, w/ point cloud | 61.72% | 16.41% | 84.21% |
| Unseen container, w/ point cloud | 59.38% | 31.25% | 68.34% |
| Component | Frequency | Runtime | Execution | Local memory/hardware |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scene planner | Once per scene | 100 s | API | – |
| Instruction generator | Once per object | 70 s | API | – |
| GALA placement | Once per object | 1 s | Local inference | 3 GB, 1 NVIDIA H20 |
3D Scene Layout Generation
3D scene layout generation arranges objects and structures into coherent, controllable scenes from text, images, plans, or functional goals.
See all 80 papers