Generating interactive 3D assets from a single image requires realistic appearance, fidelity to the depicted object, and plausible physical behavior. Yet detailed geometry alone does not determine how an object should move or deform. We introduce PhysAg3D, which couples 3D generative models with agentic reasoning and tool use. A vision-language agent first infers semantic parts, candidate interactions, and physical priors from the image; a 3D generator then produces a textured whole-object mesh from the same image. A hierarchical interaction representation links these revisable priors to mechanisms and the generated surfaces they control, organizing interaction construction and refinement. Guided by this representation and observations of the mesh, the agent uses geometric and physical tools to construct parts, joints, deformable regions, and surface bindings while retaining useful generated geometry and materials. Rendered interactions and execution measurements guide targeted revisions within a fixed budget. The framework accommodates both rigid articulation and compliant deformation. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations on real photographs and external benchmarks demonstrate detailed, image-aligned assets with plausible interactions. Ablations support bounded refinement and source-surface preservation. Project Page: supra-3d.github.io/PhysAg3D.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Detailed appearance with region-specific interaction. Each example shows an input image, its generated asset, and either appearance details or a selected interaction state. (a) A camera shows detailed surface appearance; insets compare corresponding lens-barrel regions visible in the input image and generated asset. (b) A laptop stand adjusts its tray tilt and support-arm elevation. (c) Headphones combine a rigid support with locally compliant ear pads. These development examples show recorded simulated states in (b) and (c); ear-pad deformation uses an approximate compliance model.
Figure 2: Overview of PhysAg3D with an excavator example. (1) Image-derived priors are combined with a generated textured mesh. (2) Interaction intent S specifies lifting, reaching, and curling; physical structure K specifies the corresponding joints; concrete realization X implements them with asset entities and bindings, illustrated here by its visible surfaces. (3) Asset construction binds surfaces to physical entities, and evidence attribution links observations back to the representation for local revision. Mechanism reasoning, asset construction, and evidence attribution operate within one agentic loop. Close-ups show body–boom, boom–stick, and stick–bucket connections; reference and posed states illustrate articulation.
Method
Object Type Support
Input Consistency
Action Quality
Range
Stability
Art.
Def.
FG-IoU ↑
PSNR ↑
CLIP ↑
ACR ↑
MMR ↓
RAR ↑
FVSP ↑
Particulate
✓
×
0.607
14.24
0.853
46.7%
57.5%
34.7%
24.0%
PAct
✓
×
0.531
12.53
0.806
35.0%
87.2%
18.0%
16.0%
ArtiCraft
✓
×
0.514
12.25
0.768
56.8%
51.8%
34.3%
28.0%
PhysX-Omni
✓
✓
0.504
13.06
0.817
41.2%
68.5%
26.0%
16.0%
aDSL
✓
×
0.520
12.37
0.779
66.8 %
40.2 %
48.8 %
42.0 %
Table 1: Single-image interactive generation on 50 in-the-wild objects with 110 predefined actions. Image metrics use camera-grid-aligned views. ACR, MMR, and RAR are object-level macro averages; FVSP requires all actions to complete without video-visible instability. Art./Def.: articulated/deformable support; ✓ / × : reported or evaluated/no reported support. Best and second-best values are bold and italic, respectively.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on real photographs. Printer and chair panels compare appearance and displayed motion across aDSL, PhysX-Omni, and PhysAg3D. The right column shows initial, pressed, and released states of a deformable asset.
Method
PSNR ↑
CD ↓
F-score ↑
Scale ↓
Mat. ↑
Aff. ↑
Kin. ↑
Desc. ↑
Dataset: PhysXVerse
Articulate-Anything ( Le et al., 2025 )
14.03
48.77
46.44
-
-
-
0.30
-
MonoArt ( Li et al., 2026a )
19.68
7.03
85.27
-
-
-
0.38
-
PhysXGen ( Cao et al., 2025a )
19.41
15.19
83.56
309.31
16.51
9.40
0.35
11.84
PhysX-Anything ( Cao et al., 2025b )
15.97
37.06
40.46
298.19
15.65
10.50
0.42
21.38
PhysX-Omni ( Cao et al., 2026 )
21.52
2.95
91.28
2.79
27.23
21.47
0.92
31.05
Table 2: Reference-based comparison on PhysXVerse and PhysX-Mobility. CD is in 10−3 and F-score in 10−2 at threshold 0.05 . Mat., Aff., Kin., and Desc. denote material, affordance, kinematics, and description. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best scores. A dash indicates an entry with no reported score.
Method
CLIP
RQS
MCS
DQS
APS
KPS
MPS
DCS
Articulate-Anything ( Le et al., 2025 )
0.55
88.46
55.27
-
-
71.25
-
-
MonoArt ( Li et al., 2026a )
0.84
96.20
82.56
-
-
68.32
-
-
PhysXGen ( Cao et al., 2025a )
0.80
85.93
73.50
24.21
66.07
69.17
NR
22.24
PhysX-Anything ( Cao et al., 2025b )
0.55
70.81
52.71
50.20
59.96
65.99
44.70
26.89
PhysX-Omni ( Cao et al., 2026 )
0.77
90.00
64.48
64.26
70.57
80.72
59.89
39.02
PAct ( Liu et al., 2026 )
0.74
88.50
62.00
61.50
68.00
82.00
58.50
36.50
Table 3: PhysX-Bench comparison. RQS: visual quality; MCS: 3D consistency; DQS: absolute scale; APS, KPS, MPS, and DCS denote affordance, kinematic, material, and description scores. All columns are higher-is-better. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best scores, including ties. A dash or NR denotes an unreported score.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on PhysXVerse. Each row shows the input and two states per method, with fixed viewpoint and scale within each pair. Red arrows and arcs indicate translation or rotation in our results. The states show appearance and articulation playback, not calibrated dynamics or contact stability.
Input-image consistency
Motion plausibility
Method
Mean ↑
#1 ↑
Mean ↑
#1 ↑
Collapse ↓
Particulate
2.98
7
2.84
14
21
PAct
1.99
1
1.73
0
47
ArtiCraft
2.01
1
2.06
1
28
PhysX-Omni
2.03
5
2.24
7
15
aDSL
2.38
4
2.75
11
11
Table 4: Human perceptual evaluation over 102 valid evaluations. “#1” denotes first-place selections. “Collapse” counts evaluations in which visible motion collapse was flagged; multiple methods may be selected. Best and second-best results are bolded and underlined, respectively.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Configuration
3D generator
TRELLIS.2-4B; 1024_cascade route
Sampling and texture
24 sampling steps; 2048-pixel texture size
Generator seed
42
Reasoning model
gpt-6-astra ; high reasoning effort
Geometry / simulation
Blender / MuJoCo
Builder attempts
3 total: initial construction and at most 2 repairs
Appendix
Table 6: Documented implementation configuration and construction budgets. Host validation attempts and simulations called inside construction tools are counted separately.
Evaluation
Evidence and interpretation
In-the-wild interaction
ACR, MMR, and RAR: macro averages over 50 objects, computed from 110 predefined actions. FVSP: object-level pass rate requiring all actions to complete without video-visible instability.
PhysXVerse / PhysX-Mobility
Reference assets support geometry, appearance, scale, and attribute comparisons. CD uses 10−3 units; F-score uses 10−2 units at threshold 0.05 , as in Table 2 .
PhysX-Bench
CLIP, RQS, and MCS address alignment, visual quality, and multi-view consistency. DQS addresses scale; APS, KPS, MPS, and DCS address affordance, kinematics, materials, and description.
Component ablation
The same PhysX-Bench setting compares Full pipeline, One-shot, and w/o surface preservation using CLIP, RQS, KPS, and MPS.
Extended visualization
Additional real-world cases and methods support inspection of photorealistic appearance and correspondence to the input image.
Appendix
Table 7: Evidence and interpretation for the evaluations reported in the main paper. The rows describe evaluation settings, not additional experiments.
Figure 5: Extended qualitative comparison on real-world images. Complementing Figure 3 , the expanded comparison focuses on photorealistic appearance and alignment with the input photograph across additional cases and methods.
Synthesizing physics-grounded 3D assets is a critical bottleneck for interactive virtual worlds and embodied AI. Existing methods predominantly focus on static geometry, overlooking the functional properties essential for interaction. We propose that interactive asset generation must be rooted in functional logic and hierarchical physics. To bridge this gap, we introduce PhysForge, a decoupled two-stage framework supported by PhysDB, a large-scale dataset of 150,000 assets with four-tier physical annotations. First, a VLM acts as a "physical architect" to plan a "Hierarchical Physical Blueprint" defining material, functional, and kinematic constraints. Second, a physics-grounded diffusion model realizes this blueprint by synthesizing high-fidelity geometry alongside precise kinematic parameters via a novel KineVoxel Injection (KVI) mechanism. Experiments demonstrate that PhysForge produces functionally plausible, simulation-ready assets, providing a robust data engine for interactive 3D content and embodied agents.
Significant advancements in 3D asset creation have enabled high-fidelity 3D generation from images. However, most existing representations remain inherently static, lacking the ability to model physically plausible behaviors under dynamic interactions. We present PhysCreator, a unified framework that directly generates simulation-ready 3D representations with spatially varying physical properties from images. Unlike prior approaches that treat physical attributes as simple post-hoc predictions or rely on expensive per-instance optimization, we reformulate physical property estimation within a unified 3D representation learning framework. We introduce a voxel-aligned latent space by lifting image observations into a spatially structured 3D representation, in which geometry, appearance, and physical properties are jointly modeled and inferred in a feed-forward manner. To enable scalable learning without densely annotated physical ground truth, we leverage vision-language distillation to transfer material-aware semantic priors from powerful vision-language models into spatially grounded voxel-level supervision. Experiments demonstrate that our method achieves superior visual quality, physical plausibility, and generalization compared to prior approaches.
Shiyan Zheng, Ming Li, Lei Han +1
Xi’an Jiaotong University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · Discover Robotics
Agentic recognition requires visual perception to move beyond static scene understanding and produce structured scene representations that support the perception--reasoning--action loop. Existing single-image 3D generation methods, however, mainly produce visually plausible object assets rather than simulation-ready scene states. When independently generated meshes are composed in a shared space, they may fail to align with the input camera, violate gravity, interpenetrate nearby objects, or become unstable under physics simulation. We present Fysiverse-3D-SimReady, a grounded refinement framework for reconstructing simulation-ready multi-object scenes from a single RGB image with instance and ground prompts. The method places generated object meshes into a shared gravity-aligned scene, refines their camera-space poses through differentiable rendering, and corrects scene-level supports and contacts for stable physical execution. The scene is then used by an agentic simulation workflow, which converts a scene-specific task goal into an executable physics rollout rendered from the original camera view. Experiments show that Fysiverse-3D-SimReady improves input-view alignment, contact plausibility, and physical stability over existing single-image reconstruction and scene generation baselines, while enabling goal-conditioned physical interactions from a single image.
Lintao Wang, Mingyang Sun, Yang Liu +2
Physical Superintelligence Lab, Fysics AI · College of Intelligent Robotics and Advanced Manufacturing, Fudan University · Multimedia Laboratory (MMLab), The Chinese University of Hong Kong +1