SceneMotifCoder: Example-Driven Visual Program Learning for Generating 3D Object Arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite advances in text-to-3D generation methods, generation of multi-object arrangements remains challenging. Current methods exhibit failures in generating physically plausible arrangements that respect the provided text description. We present SceneMotifCoder (SMC), an example-driven framework for generating 3D object arrangements through visual program learning. SMC leverages large language models (LLMs) and program synthesis to overcome these challenges by learning visual programs from example arrangements. These programs are generalized into compact, editable meta-programs. When combined with 3D object retrieval and geometry-aware optimization, they can be used to create object arrangements varying in arrangement structure and contained objects. Our experiments show that SMC generates high-quality arrangements using meta-programs learned from few examples. Evaluation results demonstrates that object arrangements generated by SMC better conform to user-specified text descriptions and are more physically plausible when compared with state-of-the-art text-to-3D generation and layout methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".