Existing evaluations of text-conditioned 3D indoor scene generation largely emphasize semantic fidelity and physical validity at rest, leaving interaction-time physical reliability insufficiently assessed. To address this gap, we introduce ScIntBench, a unified benchmark centered on interaction readiness: it executes prescribed manipulation actions (e.g., pushing, opening, and surface probing) in physics simulation and measures task success, capability and progress, post-interaction integrity, and dynamic plausibility. Multi-view semantic and static physical evaluations complement these metrics and help explain interaction outcomes. We systematically evaluate 12 state-of-the-art scene generation systems across 10 room types. Our results reveal that strong semantic and static physical performance does not necessarily translate into interaction readiness: a system with near-perfect static plausibility completes only 11.54% of interactions, 7 of the 12 systems produce scenes that cannot support any interaction, and even the best system succeeds in only 36.92% of prescribed tasks. These findings highlight two fundamental challenges in generating interaction-ready scenes: providing the necessary physical interaction capabilities and ensuring reliable physical behavior under active manipulation.
Figures & tables
Evaluation / Benchmark
Semantic View Setting
Static Physics
Active Interaction Physics
Methods Evaluated
TSG
LVG
SAG
GCA
SceneWeaver [ 34 ]
Top-down
✓
✗
✓
✓
✓
✗
SceneEval [ 25 ]
Top-down
✓
✗
✓
✓
✗
✗
SceneCritic [ 22 ]
Per-view analysis
✓
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
LEGO-Eval [ 7 ]
Constraint-specific
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
VWE-Bench [ 13 ]
5 views
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison of representative benchmarks and evaluation protocols for text-conditioned 3D scene generation. Semantic view setting : camera viewpoints used to render scenes for semantic evaluation. Static physics : geometric and physical plausibility checks. Active interaction physics : evaluates physical behavior during object manipulation. Methods Evaluated : TSG (task-specific generators), LVG (LLM/VLM-based generators), SAG (specialized agentic systems), GCA (general-purpose coding agents).
Method
Semantic Quality
Static Physical Plausibility
Interactive Physical Plausibility
Real ↑
Func ↑
Lay ↑
Comp ↑
COL ↓
OB ↓
SUP ↑
STAB ↑
ISR ↑
ICP ↑
PIV ↓
DP ↑
Task-specific trained scene generators
ATISS
3.00 ± 0.35
1.13 ± 0.50
1.93 ± 0.39
1.80 ± 0.32
59.20 ± 9.43
27.04 ± 5.65
27.52 ± 6.17
N.S.A.
0.00 ± 0.00
0.72 ± 0.44
N.S.A.
N.S.A.
DiffuScene
3.87 ± 0.48
1.30 ± 0.49
2.53 ± 0.39
2.13 ± 0.32
41.58 ± 7.70
14.69 ± 4.87
65.14 ± 6.15
N.S.A.
0.00 ± 0.00
0.84 ± 0.44
N.S.A.
N.S.A.
InstructScene
3.33 ± 0.32
1.40 ± 0.57
2.20 ± 0.37
2.00 ± 0.33
35.14 ± 7.58
23.22 ± 7.55
62.30 ± 7.63
N.S.A.
0.00 ± 0.00
0.77 ± 0.49
N.S.A.
N.S.A.
LLM/VLM scene workflows
Table 2: Performance comparison of different scene generation methods on ScIntBench. Metrics: Real = realism, Func = functionality, Lay = layout, Comp = completeness, COL = collision rate, OB = out-of-bounds, SUP = support, STAB = stability, ISR = interaction success rate, ICP = interaction capability progress, PIV = post-interaction violation rate, DP = dynamic plausibility. COL, OB, SUP, STAB, ISR, PIV are percentages, while all other metrics are scored on a 0–10 scale. N.S.A. denotes not support interaction due to missing targets or native physical prerequisites. We use mean values ± 95% t-distribution CI to quantify uncertainty. ↑ indicates higher is better, and ↓ indicates lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second best.
Figure 2: Qualitative comparison of generated scenes on ScIntBench. We show scenes generated by DiffuScene [ 26 ] , LayoutVLM [ 23 ] , Holodeck [ 33 ] , SAGE [ 28 ] , SceneSmith [ 17 ] , Codex [ 15 ] , and Claude Code [ 1 ] .
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of interaction task outcomes. We show example outcomes in scenes generated by SAGE [ 28 ] , SceneSmith [ 17 ] , Codex [ 15 ] , and Claude Code [ 1 ] .
Method
Runtime (min)
API Cost (USD)
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Task-specific trained scene generators
ATISS
0.19
0.15
0.27
0
0
0
DiffuScene
0.53
0.51
0.55
0
0
0
InstructScene
0.05
0.03
0.06
0
0
0
LLM/VLM scene workflows
Table 3: Computational requirements statistics over these methods. For Codex and Claude Code, API costs are estimated from recorded token usage using OpenAI’s pricing and Anthropic’s pricing, respectively.
Metric
Spearman ρ↑
Kendall τ↑
ICP
0.5126
0.4654
DP
0.4169
0.4215
Table 4: The correlation between MLLM-based evaluations and human evaluations.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Category
Training / Adaptation
Backbone
ATISS [ 16 ]
Trained Generator
3D-FRONT
–
DiffuScene [ 26 ]
Trained Generator
3D-FRONT
–
InstructScene [ 10 ]
Trained Generator
3D-FRONT
–
LayoutGPT [ 4 ]
LLM/VLM Workflow
Pretrained
GPT-4
LayoutVLM [ 23 ]
LLM/VLM Workflow
Pretrained
GPT-4o
Holodeck [ 33 ]
LLM/VLM Workflow
Pretrained
GPT-4
Appendix
Table 5: Configuration of the evaluated methods. 3D-FRONT denotes task-specific scene generation models trained on the 3D-FRONT [ 5 ] dataset, while Pretrained denotes approaches primarily relying on pretrained foundation models.
Figure 4: Overview of the 10 room types included in ScIntBench.
Action
Action Family
Target Object
Success Criteria
Open mini-fridge door
open_hinged
Mini fridge
Opening ≥60∘ , held for ≥1 s
Open room door
open_hinged
Room door
Opening ≥60∘ , held for ≥1 s
Push double bed
push_rigid
Double bed
Displacement 0.13 – 0.17 m
Push mini fridge
push_rigid
Mini fridge
Displacement 0.13 – 0.17 m
Push table
push_rigid
Table
Displacement 0.13 – 0.17 m
Place and push probe
place_push_probe
Bed surface
Sliding ≥0.02 m for ≥0.2 s
Appendix
Table 6: Interaction tasks constructed for Scene 3 (Bedroom). The main success criteria are shown; additional contact, support, and physical validity conditions are specified in the frozen action contracts.
Figure 5: Examples of robot policy calibration in controlled scenes. We validate the Franka Panda execution policies for hinged opening (left) and rigid pushing (right) before evaluating generated scenes.
Reference set
Source
ISR (%) ↑
ICP ↑
PIV (%) ↓
DP ↑
BEHAVIOR-1K
Reference
100.0
10.00
0.00
7.57
SAGE
14.3
6.00
0.53
6.00
SceneSmith
28.6
6.00
4.11
5.20
Holodeck
42.9
5.43
6.58
6.50
Codex
57.1
7.33
0.00
7.00
Claude Code
57.1
9.20
10.30
7.00
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison with interactive reference scenes. We select BEHAVIOR-1K [ 9 ] , ReplicaCAD [ 24 ] , and iGibson [ 8 ] . ↑ indicates higher is better, and ↓ indicates lower is better. Bold = best.
Figure 6: Overview of interaction task outcomes across twelve scene generation methods.
Figure 7: Additional qualitative comparison of generated scenes across twelve scene generation systems.
Figure 8: Human evaluation interface for active metrics validation. Participants inspect synchronized target and overview videos, the intended action, and supporting physical measurements. They independently assess interaction capability and progress (ICP) using a six-level rubric and dynamic plausibility (DP) on a 0–10 scale.
Generating physically consistent 3D tabletop scenes is a fundamental yet underexplored problem for interactive and generalist robotic learning. The challenge stems from dense object hierarchies and irregular affordances. Here, an interactive scene denotes a physically valid, collision-free environment directly loadable into physics simulators. Existing methods, ranging from decoupled symbolic solvers to end-to-end regression models, often suffer from error propagation or overfitting to noisy supervision containing widespread physical violations. To address these limitations, we introduce PhyScene3D, a framework that reformulates generation as a Human-Mimetic Constructive Process. The proposed Cognitive Topological Reasoning Chain (CTRC) factorizes scene synthesis into a sequential, anchor-conditioned process. It employs a 3D AABB-based placement scheme that imposes a strong structural inductive bias. To address imperfect supervision and physical infeasibility, we introduce Physics-Aware Denoising Alignment (PADA). It integrates a differentiable Signed Distance Field (SDF) with Test-Time Optimization (TTO) to project generated scenes onto a physics-feasible manifold while preserving semantic intent. Experiments demonstrate that PhyScene3D outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in both semantic accuracy and physical validity, achieving a 40% reduction in scene-wise collision rate relative to the human-annotated training data.
Weixing Chen, Zhuoqian Feng, Yang Liu +6
Sun Yat-sen University, China · Guangdong Key Laboratory of Big Data Analysis and Processing · Huawei +1
Existing methods for single-image 3D indoor scene generation often produce visually plausible results that violate real-world physical constraints, limiting their reliability in robotics, embodied AI, and virtual environment design. To bridge this gap, we introduce a Physics Evaluator that assesses four aspects (geometric priors, contact, stability, and deployability) through nine sub-constraints, establishing a benchmark for evaluating physical consistency. Our analysis reveals that even state-of-the-art methods produce scenes with substantial physical inconsistencies despite their visual plausibility. To address these limitations, we propose a framework that incorporates feedback from the Physics Evaluator into both training and inference to improve the physical plausibility of generated scenes. Specifically, PhyMix comprises two components: (i) implicit alignment via Scene-GRPO, a critic-free group-relative preference optimization strategy that uses physical evaluations to guide the generator toward physically plausible layouts, and (ii) explicit refinement via verifier-guided agentic repair, which translates evaluator diagnostics into executable scene-editing skills to correct residual violations at inference time. PhyMix unifies physical evaluation, preference-based alignment, and agentic inference-time correction to improve physical plausibility while retaining the observed scene content. Experiments show improvements in reconstruction quality and physical plausibility, while qualitative examples on stylized and real-world images illustrate the applicability of the framework beyond synthetic inputs.
Dongli Wu, Jingyu Hu, Ka-Hei Hui +4
1Lingnan University · 2The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · 3The Chinese University of Hong Kong +2
Recent progress in image and 3D scene generation has enabled increasingly realistic static environments, yet most methods remain confined to such static configurations. Generating dynamic scenes from natural language is fundamentally challenging: it requires joint reasoning over scene structure, temporal evolution, and physical feasibility, while ensuring reliable execution in modern physics engines. We present a unified framework for generating physically consistent dynamic 3D scenes from text, with outputs directly executable in Unreal Engine. Central to our approach is the Evolutive Scene Graph (ESG), which specifies entities with physical attributes, spatial relations, and event-driven timelines in a machine-checkable form. Given a prompt, a large language model constructs and validates a complete ESG; spatial layouts are grounded via energy-minimized gradient optimization; timeline-constrained physical parameters are then optimized through differentiable simulation to satisfy user-specified events; and the resulting scene is compiled into an engine-executable class. Experiments on 10 scenes across three complexity levels show that our method achieves 16.4/18 mean event completion, outperforming Scene Language, the strongest engine-executable baseline (SimWorld), and our ablation without physical optimization by a clear margin in event completion and parameter accuracy.
Xintong Fang, Zhiyuan Fang, Rengan Xie +6
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · State Key Laboratory of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) +1