We present PhysInsert, a framework for physically plausible reference-based object insertion that jointly adapts objects and their surrounding scenes. Existing methods often rely on masked inputs, generation-based pairs, or training pairs with limited viewpoint variation, leaving pose and illumination adaptation and bidirectional object-scene interactions insufficiently constrained. We construct the Insert World dataset with strictly aligned Blender-rendered counterfactual pairs and object references across viewpoints and lighting conditions. Building on these data, Geometry-Guided Adaptation couples a VGGT geometry stream with image and text streams under target-scene feature supervision to guide spatially consistent insertion. Complementary 2D Object-Scene Spatial Supervision jointly supervises object occupancy and environmental changes while grounding spatial instructions in object regions through image-text attention. We introduce PhysInsert-Bench with dedicated cross-environment and cross-view cases requiring illumination and pose adaptation beyond appearance copying. Experiments on PhysInsert-Bench and DreamBooth demonstrate improved image fidelity; a user study further shows more accurate placement and improved lighting integration, perspective, and pose plausibility.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a–c) PhysInsert simultaneously supports cross-environment adaptation, bidirectional object–scene interactions, and cross-view adaptation. (d) InsertWorld offers broad coverage of scenes, object properties, and interaction types.
Figure 2: Overview of InsertWorld construction and PhysInsert-Bench composition.
Figure 3: PhysInsert combines a VGGT geometry stream with image and text streams. Target-scene features supervise geometry-token states, while 2D-OSS aligns object/effect predictions and spatial-text attention with image regions. Auxiliary supervision is used only during training.
Method
DIoU (%) ↑
Mask IoU (%) ↑
DINO-Obj. ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25 (%) ↑
Phy-VLM ↑
Proprietary Models
Nano Banana Pro ( Google DeepMind, 2025 )
54.58
48.34
0.7023
22.85
0.8231
0.1527
46.55
0.2066
77.08
3.48±0.09
GPT-Image-2 ( OpenAI, 2026 )
38.02
31.92
0.6746
19.39
0.7017
0.2949
53.46
0.3129
65.48
3.17±0.11
Open-Source Models
OmniPaint + PhysW. ( Yu et al., 2025 )
37.69
33.94
0.5828
20.67
0.8302
0.1733
73.54
0.2401
67.30
2.06±0.13
Insert-Anything + PhysW. ( Song et al., 2025 )
22.66
21.46
0.6275
19.45
0.7711
0.3128
64.39
0.2651
67.79
2.36±0.13
Table 2: Text-guided results on PhysInsert-Bench using one object-reference image per case for all reported metrics. Phy-VLM obtains three valid ratings per output with GPT-5.5, retrying null responses, and reports mean ± 95% confidence-interval half-width. Unless otherwise specified, the following conventions apply to this and subsequent tables: +PhysW. denotes fine-tuning on our InsertWorld dataset with the same training budget as ours under the corresponding guidance setting; bold / underline mark the best/second-best across methods.
Method
Mask IoU (%) ↑
DINO-Obj. ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25 (%) ↑
Proprietary Models
Nano Banana Pro ( Google DeepMind, 2025 )
52.94
0.7152
22.53
0.8056
0.1609
45.32
0.1846
81.03
GPT-Image-2 ( OpenAI, 2026 )
39.61
0.6798
21.45
0.7716
0.2049
50.68
0.2860
71.24
Open-Source Models
AnyDoor ( Chen et al., 2024a )
55.92
0.5379
20.42
0.8158
0.2413
63.50
0.2070
67.01
Insert-Anything ( Song et al., 2025 )
55.09
0.6507
22.70
0.8735
0.1608
52.23
0.1911
74.99
Table 3: Box-guided results on PhysInsert-Bench. Ours is adapted from the text-guided model for an additional 4,000 box-guided steps; +PhysW. baselines use the same training budget with our method. † For PhysInsert-Bench, DIRECT uses GT-image-assisted pose fitting
Method
PhysInsert-Bench-Wild
DreamBooth
1-view
3-view
1-view
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
DINO-Obj. ↑
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
DINO-Obj. ↑
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
DINO-Obj. ↑
Proprietary Models
Nano Banana Pro ( Google DeepMind, 2025 )
15.78
123.2
0.7881
15.72
115.3
0.7909
15.58
83.74
0.8650
GPT-Image-2 ( OpenAI, 2026 )
16.74
113.4
0.7457
16.88
112.9
0.7865
14.68
87.77
0.8821
Open-Source Models
Table 4: Results on PhysInsert-Bench-Wild with one or three reference images, and DreamBooth with one reference image.
Figure 4: User-study result. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons on PhysInsert-Bench (top), DreamBooth and PhysInsert-Bench-Wild (middle), and the user-study set (bottom).
Figure 6: Mechanism probes and qualitative ablations. (a) Spatial-text attention, object/effect predictions, and VGGT feature evolution under identical GT-noised inputs ( σ=0.5 ). (b) Separate ablations of SSG, GGA, and COSS for placement and scale, perspective, and floor reflection. (c) Text-guided pose and placement control.
Variant
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
DIoU (%) ↑
DINO-Obj. ↑
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25 (%) ↑
Init.
19.34
0.7840
0.2260
60.99
48.32
0.6786
0.2207
73.35
PhysW.
22.53
0.8529
0.1442
48.61
60.19
0.7062
0.1372
84.18
w/o GGA
23.83
0.8702
0.1226
43.94
61.45
0.7206
0.1354
85.15
w/o SSG
23.73
0.8702
0.1203
44.97
62.51
0.7157
0.1287
86.06
w/o COSS
23.90
0.8722
0.1168
42.68
61.58
0.7232
0.1315
86.40
Full model
24.40
0.8773
0.1118
41.96
62.99
0.7276
0.1195
86.56
Table 5: Ablations on PhysInsert Bench.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Optical Adaptation
Pose Adaptation
1-view
1-view
3-view
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FID ↓
FID ↓
DINO-Obj. ↑
PSNR ↑
FID ↓
DINO-Obj. ↑
PSNR ↑
Proprietary Models
Nano Banana Pro ( Google DeepMind, 2025 )
22.92
0.8153
0.1488
56.67
59.70
0.6886
22.20
60.85
0.6824
22.05
GPT-Image-2 ( OpenAI, 2026 )
22.01
0.8045
0.1785
66.55
64.31
0.6566
20.99
66.53
0.6404
21.06
Open-Source Models
Appendix
Table S1 : Box-guided results on 180 Optical Adaptation and 220 Pose Adaptation cases.
Metric
Evaluation scope
Preferred
PSNR
Full-image pixel fidelity
Higher
SSIM
Full-image structural similarity
Higher
LPIPS
Full-image perceptual distance
Lower
FID
Full-image feature distributions
Lower
DIoU (%)
Mask-box overlap and center distance
Higher
Mask IoU (%)
Visible foreground overlap
Higher
Appendix
Table S2 : Evaluation metrics and their scope.
Setting
Value
Base-model training
Optimizer
AdamW
Base learning rate
1×10−4
Weight decay
0.01
Learning-rate scheduler
PyTorch ConstantLR (defaults)
Effective batch size
8
Appendix
Table S3 : Base-model training and inference hyperparameters. The additional box-guided training budget is listed separately.
Parameter
Value
Flow Matching Loss coefficient
1
Geometry Alignment Loss, λgeo
0.02
Counterfactual Supervision Loss, λcf
0.01
Object Grounding Loss, λground
0.005
Module settings
VGGT feature layer, ℓv
23
Appendix
Table S4 : Auxiliary-loss weights and module hyperparameters for single-stage training.
Method
Denoiser params (B)
Pipeline params (B)
Time/image (s)
Peak memory (GiB)
Qwen-Image-Edit-2511
20.430
28.849
79.40±0.06
55.92
Ours (MLP)
20.815
30.143
120.13±0.26
60.80
Appendix
Table S5 : Inference efficiency on one NVIDIA L20X GPU at 1024×1024 , batch size 1, 40 denoising steps, and CFG 4.0. Parameter counts are obtained from the loaded inference modules. Latency is the mean and sample standard deviation over five cases after two warmup calls; memory is the maximum PyTorch-allocated GPU memory over the timed calls. B denotes 109 parameters.
Figure S1 : Selected box-guided comparisons on PhysInsert-Bench with one reference image. DIRECT additionally receives GT pose.
Figure S2 : Selected text-guided comparisons on PhysInsert-Bench with one reference image. References are center-cropped only for visualization.
Figure S3 : Additional qualitative comparisons on DreamBooth (1/2). Columns show the background, object reference, ground-truth target (GT), OmniPaint, InsertAnything, DIRECT, GPT-Image2, Nano Banana Pro, and Ours. DIRECT uses a GT-pose RGB proxy; GPT-Image2 and Nano Banana Pro use text guidance.
Figure S4 : Additional qualitative comparisons on DreamBooth (2/2). The column order and method settings are the same as in Figure S3 .
Figure S5 : Additional qualitative comparisons on 11 cases from the in-the-wild user-study set. Columns show the object reference, background scene, OmniPaint, InsertAnything, DIRECT, Nano Banana Pro, and Ours. White boxes in the scene column indicate approximate insertion regions. OmniPaint is included for qualitative comparison only and was not part of the user-study ratings.
Figure S6 : Five InsertWorld training examples. Each row contains the with-object scene (With), the corresponding object-free scene (Without), and the isolated target rendered from the scene viewpoint on a white display background (Removed-only). The right panel shows the same target under two lighting conditions (rows L1 and L2) and four corresponding fixed viewpoints (columns). Lighting conditions and viewpoints are selected separately for each example.
Figure S7 : PhysInsert-Bench samples (1/4). The original interaction tag appears at left in readable form, followed by the object-free scene (Without), with-object target (GT), and actual single-view object input. Case IDs refer to the benchmark manifest.
Figure S8 : PhysInsert-Bench samples (2/4). Column meanings follow Figure S7 . The reference is the actual one-view benchmark input, including its original background; it is neither a multiview collage nor a newly rendered reference.
Figure S9 : PhysInsert-Bench samples (3/4). Column meanings follow Figure S7 . The examples illustrate cloth, suspension, leaning, flat support, and depth ordering using the original benchmark annotations.
Video object insertion is fundamental to video editing, yet existing diffusion methods often produce visually plausible but physically inconsistent results. We present Place-it-R1, an end-to-end framework for physically plausible video object insertion driven by environment-aware MLLM reasoning. Rather than treating reasoning as a generic text prompt, Place-it-R1 uses the MLLM to analyze the target environment, infer object-scene interactions, and determine where an insertion is physically valid. The resulting reasoning is translated into two complementary forms of guidance for video diffusion: semantic guidance that describes the intended physical interaction and spatial guidance that provides a valid insertion region in each frame. To further align generation with local physical realism, we introduce Spatial Direct Preference Optimization, which leverages an MLLM to rank generated candidates, and introduces a region-aware preference objective that explicitly localizes physical-violation penalties to the inserted-object region. Place-it-R1 further offers flexible and standard modes to trade off environment adaptation and scene preservation. Extensive experiments show that Place-it-R1 produces more physically coherent and visually natural insertions than state-of-the-art methods and achieves competitive results against commercial systems.
Bohai Gu, Taiyi Wu, Dazhao Du +5
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · AI Technology Center, Tencent Video, Tencent · Peking University
Object insertion aims to seamlessly composite a reference object into a specified region of a background image. Recent diffusion-based methods achieve high visual quality but formulate insertion as a simple 2D inpainting task, providing no explicit control over the object's 3D pose and limiting their practical applicability. We propose DIRECT (Decomposed Injection for Reference Composition and Target-integration), a novel framework that integrates interactive pose manipulation with high-fidelity 2D image synthesis to enable pose-controllable object insertion. Our method decomposes the insertion conditions into three complementary components: appearance guidance capturing visual details from the reference object, geometry guidance derived from the user-adjusted 3D proxy, and context guidance from the target background. By injecting them through separate pathways, DIRECT avoids feature entanglement and simultaneously preserves reference appearance, follows the user-specified pose, and adapts the object to the target scene. We also introduce an automated data construction pipeline to improve the diversity and quality of training data. Experiments show that DIRECT outperforms previous methods in both geometric controllability and visual quality.
Jingbo Gong, Yikai Wang, Yushi Lan +6
VCIP, School of Computer Science, Nankai University · Zhongguancun Academy · S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University +2
Inserting objects into existing 3D scenes requires more than selecting a plausible location: the inserted object must also fit local geometry while preserving semantic intent and physical plausibility. Although recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) and generative models enable semantic reasoning and visual content creation, they offer limited 3D grounding and geometric control when an inserted object must fit into constrained local spaces. We introduce ElasticFit, a VLM-guided framework for fit-aware object insertion centered on a novel scene-grounded representation. Given a language instruction and rendered scene observations, ElasticFit infers structured fitting cues that specify where the object should be grounded, what volume it should occupy, how it should be oriented, and its adaptation mode (rigid placement, uniform scaling, or elastic fitting). These cues convert high-level VLM reasoning into explicit 3D constraints that condition object generation and guide downstream geometric fitting. ElasticFit then generates a scene-conditioned object prior, reconstructs it in 3D, and refines the mesh through mode-specific fitting while enforcing collision avoidance, contact consistency, and physical grounding. In fixed-asset baseline comparisons, ElasticFit improves spatial relation success from 50.8% to 69.7% and support success from 48.3% to 91.7% over the strongest baseline, while providing novel support for generative "make-it-fit" insertions in complex scenarios.