Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Spatial 3D-LLM: Exploring Spatial Awareness in 3D Vision-Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A three-stage progressive spatial awareness scheme—cluster, message-pass, then interact with the scene—makes a 3D vision-language model state of the art on location-heavy tasks.

desk verdict Sensible architecture and two useful new tasks, but the spatial supervision is under-specified and the SOTA claim overshoots; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16524 v1 pith:YIA7IVJX submitted 2025-07-22 cs.CV cs.AI

Xiaoyan Wang , Zeju Li , Yifan Xu , Jiaxing Qi , Zhifei Yang , Ruifei Ma , Xiangde Liu , Chao Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords 3Dvision-languagemodelsspatialawarenessvisualgroundingpointcloudsceneunderstandinginstructiontuningobjectdistancemeasurementlayouteditingprogressivescheme
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's central claim is that existing 3D vision-language models lose spatial richness because they either compress a whole scene into one token or treat objects one at a time. Spatial 3D-LLM instead builds a progressive spatial awareness scheme: visual referents are first clustered from point features, then exchange distance-based messages in a graph, and finally interact with the full scene, producing location-enriched embeddings used as the visual prompt to an instruction-tuned language model. The paper also introduces two new tasks, 3D object distance measurement and 3D layout editing, plus a 263K-annotation instruction dataset called MODLE, to test fine-grained spatial awareness. On scene understanding, grounding, embodied dialogue, and the new tasks, the full model reports higher scores than its own ablations and than prior generalist models, especially on location and spatial-relation benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the visual referent: a 256-dimensional feature attached to a 3D point that the model treats as an object-like unit. The progressive spatial awareness scheme evolves referents in three stages: intra-referent clustering and abstraction (C1) moves sampled seed points toward object centers by predicted offsets and pools local region features; inter-referent message passing (C2) runs a graph convolution over referents with edges weighted by referent-to-referent distances; and contextual interactions (C3) applies self- and cross-attention between referents and scene tokens, then refines referent locations with a trainable offset prediction. The final referents, each carrying location and feature, are projected into the language model's embedding space and serve as the visual prompt.

What would settle it

Run the trained model on a held-out scene and count, for each of the 256 visual referents, which ground-truth object is nearest; if one object receives most referents while others receive none, or if recomputing the two spatial losses under a one-to-one Hungarian assignment changes the gap between the clustering-only and full models, the assumed object-centric supervision is not what drives the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that spatial awareness in a 3D multimodal LLM is not only a property of the text decoder; it can be built into the visual prompt itself. Starting from 1,024 point tokens, the model samples 256 referents by farthest-point sampling, predicts vote offsets toward object centers, and pools local features so each referent becomes a location-aware unit. A graph convolutional network then propagates messages between referents with edges based on inter-referent distances, and a contextual module lets referents attend to the whole scene and refine their locations. Two auxiliary losses pull each referent toward the centroid of its nearest ground-truth object and align pairwise referent distances with ground-truth pairwise distances. The authors report that the complete pipeline outperforms the clustering-only and clustering-plus-graph variants, and they attribute the gains to this progressive enlargement of the perception field.

Load-bearing premise

The spatial losses assume that assigning each visual referent to its nearest ground-truth object is enough supervision, but nothing enforces one-to-one coverage, so many referents could collapse onto the same object and still make the pairwise loss look small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, a single instruction-tuned model can output precise 3D coordinates for localization, distances, and edited layouts without task-specific output heads, because location information is carried inside the visual prompt.
  • The three-stage ablation implies every stage is load-bearing: clustering alone is the weakest, adding distance-based message passing helps, and adding scene-level contextual interaction helps further, so future designs should keep all three.
  • Joint training across understanding, grounding, and the two new tasks lifts all of them, suggesting spatial awareness is a shared capability rather than a per-task specialization.
  • The new distance-measurement and layout-editing tasks give the community a way to measure fine-grained spatial awareness that coarse relation prediction does not cover.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The spatial-loss design leaves referent-to-object assignment implicit; a one-to-one matching or a coverage regularizer would make the object-centric supervision testable, and alternate matching choices could shift the reported numbers.
  • The progressive referent hierarchy is a natural fit for settings beyond static scans, such as embodied navigation or augmented-reality editing, where the same referents could carry object identities over time, but the paper does not demonstrate this.
  • Because the new instruction dataset is template-generated from object descriptions, the reported gains on distance and layout tasks may partly reflect the model learning the template; paraphrased or adversarially scrambled instructions would isolate genuine spatial reasoning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Spatial 3D-LLM, a 3D multimodal large language model that augments a PointNet++ scene encoder with a three-stage progressive spatial awareness scheme: intra-referent clustering and abstraction (C1), inter-referent GCN message passing (C2), and contextual interactions with self-attention, cross-attention, and a refine-location layer (C3). The resulting visual referents are used as visual prompts for a Vicuna-7B LLM. The paper also introduces two new tasks, 3D object distance measurement and 3D layout editing, and constructs a synthetic instruction dataset (MODLE/MODEL). The model is trained jointly on ScanRefer, Scan2Cap, ScanQA, SQA3D, Multi3DRef, and the proposed tasks. The paper reports strong results on many benchmarks and ablation results that appear to show each component contributes to performance.

Significance. If the results hold, the progressive spatial awareness scheme is a plausible way to inject object-level and scene-level spatial information into 3D LLMs, and the new tasks and dataset address a real gap in fine-grained spatial evaluation. The paper is also commendable for evaluating on multiple external benchmarks and for reporting ablations. However, the strongest claims are not fully supported: the state-of-the-art claim is contradicted by the paper's own tables on ScanRefer and SQA3D, and the spatial-supervision loss is under-specified. Because these issues affect the central contribution, the contribution is not currently established at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B3, Lcenter and Lpsc] The supervision in Section IV-B3 defines each visual referent's ground-truth location as 'the centroid of the nearest object' but does not specify a one-to-one assignment (e.g., Hungarian matching) or a coverage term. With 256 referents and typically far fewer objects per ScanNet scene, the nearest-object rule is not injective: multiple referents can share the same target, and Lcenter is minimized by placing all referents at the same object centroid. In that configuration Lpsc is also zero because all pairwise ground-truth distances are zero. The loss therefore does not by itself encourage object-centric referents, and the resulting pvr may not encode the claimed spatial structure. Please specify the assignment protocol and add a coverage/one-to-one constraint, or show that the learned representation is insensitive to this degeneracy.
  2. [Table IV and Section IV-B3] The ablation attributes the full-model gains to the Contextual Interactions module (C3), but C3 contains not only self-attention and cross-attention but also the Refine-Location layer and the Lcenter/Lpsc losses. Since the C1 and C1+C2 variants appear to omit these spatial losses, the comparison conflates the effect of the attention modules with the effect of the spatial supervision. An ablation that keeps the spatial losses fixed while toggling the attention modules is needed to support the claim that the progressive scheme, rather than the loss terms, drives the improvements.
  3. [Abstract, Section I, Tables II-III] The claim of state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of 3D VL tasks is not supported by the reported numbers. On ScanRefer (Table III), Spatial 3D-LLM reaches Acc@0.25 44.3 and Acc@0.5 37.2, below M3DRef-CLIP (51.9/44.7) and Grounded 3D-LLM (47.9/44.1). On SQA3D (Table II), EM@1 is 46.2, below 3D-ViSTA's 48.5. Several Scan2Cap metrics (BLEU-4, METEOR, ROUGE) are also below the best task-specific models. Please either soften the claim to 'competitive' or provide a definition of SOTA that matches the tables.
  4. [Section III, Table I, Abstract] The dataset statistics are inconsistent. The abstract and introduction state 263K annotations, but Table I's train counts sum to 171K+36K+34K=241K (plus 20K val, still not 263K). Section III-A says 173K distance pairs while Table I says 171K; Section III-B says 45K movement pairs while Table I says 36K. These discrepancies must be resolved because the dataset size is one of the two headline contributions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Section III] The dataset name is inconsistent: MODEL in the Abstract and Introduction vs MODLE in Section III. Please choose one naming convention.
  2. [Section IV-A and Section V-A] Section IV-A calls the scene encoder frozen, but the implementation details in Section V-A do not state explicitly whether the PointNet++ weights are frozen during joint training. Please clarify.
  3. [Table III] Table III lists 'ReGround3D 3D-LLM' as a method but gives no values in the Multi3DRef columns, and the name differs from the cited ReGround3D/ScanReason reference [32]. Please align the table with the reference.
  4. [Section III] There is a typo 'Sptial 3D-LLM' in the opening of Section III; it should read 'Spatial 3D-LLM'.
  5. [Section III and Appendix A] The proposed MODLE tasks are synthetic and template-based; the paper should state whether human evaluation or an independent benchmark is planned, since the model is both trained and evaluated on the same generated distribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the progressive spatial awareness scheme is supported by external-benchmark ablations, and the spatial losses are supervised objectives, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the progressive spatial awareness scheme (C1+C2+C3) improves 3D VL performance, evidenced by ablations on Scan2Cap, Multi3DRef, and the proposed MODLE tasks. These evaluations use held-out benchmark metrics, not quantities derived by construction from the training losses. L_center and L_psc are supervised training objectives that guide referent locations toward ground-truth centroids; they are not fitted parameters that are later relabeled as predictions. The under-specified nearest-object assignment highlighted by the skeptic is a legitimate correctness and optimization concern, but it does not make the empirical claim circular: even a degenerate supervision signal would be a training failure mode rather than an equation that equates output to input by definition. The architecture borrows from external works (VoteNet, LL3DA, Vote2Cap-DETR), and the coordinate normalization follows LL3DA, none of which involve the authors' own prior results as load-bearing premises. Self-citations [4] and [5] appear only as related-work references and are not used to justify the core contribution. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or per-epoch fit is imported from the authors' earlier papers. The central derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the paper's inputs; the raised issues belong in correctness risk, not circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the scene encoder, voting/clustering alignment, GCN distance-based modeling, and the transferability of template-generated synthetic instructions. No new physical entities are introduced. The main hand-chosen free parameters are the spatial loss weights and the referent count.

free parameters (4)
  • loss weight alpha_1 for Lpsc = not reported
    Ltotal = LLLM + alpha_1*Lpsc + alpha_2*Lcenter (Section IV-C). Values are hand-chosen and not specified in the paper.
  • loss weight alpha_2 for Lcenter = not reported
    Same objective function in Section IV-C; value not disclosed.
  • number of visual referents M = 256
    Section IV-B1 sets 256 seed points via FPS, and M appears in Lcenter. This architectural choice affects capacity and the supervision target.
  • number of point tokens = 1024
    Section IV-A: scene encoder outputs 1,024 tokens. This capacity choice is part of the model.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PointNet++ frozen encoder provides a sufficient 3D scene representation
    Section IV-A uses PointNet++ for the entire scene; the model's understanding of the scene is bounded by this fixed encoder.
  • domain assumption Farthest point sampling plus VoteNet-style voting offsets aligns referent seeds to object centers
    Section IV-B1 assumes the predicted offset moves seed points to object centers, which the subsequent losses depend on.
  • domain assumption Distance-based adjacency in the GCN captures relevant spatial relations between objects
    Section IV-B2 defines graph edges from referent distances; this assumes Euclidean distance is the right relational signal for spatial awareness.
  • domain assumption Synthetic template instructions derived from ScanRefer/ScanNet annotations transfer to general spatial reasoning
    Section III generates all new task data from templates and GT boxes; the claim that the model acquires spatial commonsense assumes this data is a valid proxy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatial 3D-LLM: Exploring Spatial Awareness in 3D Vision-Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIA7IVJX

@misc{pith2026250716524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatial 3D-LLM: Exploring Spatial Awareness in 3D Vision-Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIA7IVJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16524}
}
read the original abstract

New era has unlocked exciting possibilities for extending Large Language Models (LLMs) to tackle 3D vision-language tasks. However, most existing 3D multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) rely on compressing holistic 3D scene information or segmenting independent objects to perform these tasks, which limits their spatial awareness due to insufficient representation of the richness inherent in 3D scenes. To overcome these limitations, we propose Spatial 3D-LLM, a 3D MLLM specifically designed to enhance spatial awareness for 3D vision-language tasks by enriching the spatial embeddings of 3D scenes. Spatial 3D-LLM integrates an LLM backbone with a progressive spatial awareness scheme that progressively captures spatial information as the perception field expands, generating location-enriched 3D scene embeddings to serve as visual prompts. Furthermore, we introduce two novel tasks: 3D object distance measurement and 3D layout editing, and construct a 3D instruction dataset, MODEL, to evaluate the model's spatial awareness capabilities. Experimental results demonstrate that Spatial 3D-LLM achieves state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of 3D vision-language tasks, revealing the improvements stemmed from our progressive spatial awareness scheme of mining more profound spatial information. Our code is available at https://github.com/bjshuyuan/Spatial-3D-LLM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16524 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The model architecture of Spatial 3D-LLM. It includes a frozen 3D scene encoder, an LLM backbone, and a meticulously designed progressive spatial awareness scheme that incorporates intra-referent clustering and abstraction, inter￾referent message passing, and contextual referent-scene interactions, generating location-enriched 3D scene embeddings. (Lcenter) and the pairwise spatial constraint loss (Lpsc) which are c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative Results. We provide several visualization results on various 3D vision and language tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. 3D-R1: Enhancing Reasoning in 3D VLMs for Unified Scene Understanding

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    3D-R1 uses a synthetic chain-of-thought cold start plus GRPO reinforcement learning with perception, semantic, and format rewards, and reports best published results across 3D dense captioning, QA, grounding, dialogue...

  2. Nav-R1: Reasoning and Navigation in Embodied Scenes

    cs.RO 2025-09 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Nav-R1 uses a 110K synthetic CoT dataset, GRPO with three rewards, and a fast-in-slow system to set new SOTA on R2R-CE, RxR-CE, and HM3D-OVON.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi, “Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 12888–12900

    2022

  2. [2]

    Visual instruction tuning,

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee, “Visual instruction tuning,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 36, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    3d-llm: Injecting the 3d world into large language models,

    Yining Hong, Haoyu Zhen, Peihao Chen, Shuhong Zheng, et al., “3d-llm: Injecting the 3d world into large language models,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 20482–20494, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    3dmit: 3d multi-modal instruction tuning for scene understanding,

    Zeju Li, Chao Zhang, Xiaoyan Wang, Ruilong Ren, Yifan Xu, Ruifei Ma, Xiangde Liu, and Rong Wei, “3dmit: 3d multi-modal instruction tuning for scene understanding,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Argus: Leveraging Multiview Images for Improved 3-D Scene Understanding With Large Language Models

    Yifan Xu, Chao Zhang, Hanqi Jiang, Xiaoyan Wang, Ruifei Ma, Yiwei Li, Zihao Wu, Zeju Li, and Xiangde Liu, “Argus: Leveraging multiview images for improved 3-d scene understanding with large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12916, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Chat-3d v2: Bridging 3d scene and large language models with object identifiers,

    Haifeng Huang, Zehan Wang, Rongjie Huang, Luping Liu, Xize Cheng, et al., “Chat-3d v2: Bridging 3d scene and large language models with object identifiers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08168, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    An embodied generalist agent in 3d world,

    Jiangyong Huang, Silong Yong, Xiaojian Ma, Xiongkun Linghu, et al., “An embodied generalist agent in 3d world,” inForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Physically grounded vision- language models for robotic manipulation,

    Jensen Gao, Bidipta Sarkar, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Jiajun Wu, Brian Ichter, Anirudha Majumdar, and Dorsa Sadigh, “Physically grounded vision- language models for robotic manipulation,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2024, pp. 12462–12469

    work page 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Vr-gpt: Visual language model for intelligent virtual reality applications,

    Mikhail Konenkov, Artem Lykov, Daria Trinitatova, and Dzmitry Tsetserukou, “Vr-gpt: Visual language model for intelligent virtual reality applications,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11537, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Llplace: The 3d indoor scene layout generation and editing via large language model,

    Yixuan Yang, Junru Lu, Zixiang Zhao, et al., “Llplace: The 3d indoor scene layout generation and editing via large language model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03866, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ll3da: Visual interactive instruction tuning for omni-3d understanding reasoning and planning,

    Sijin Chen, Xin Chen, Chi Zhang, Mingsheng Li, et al., “Ll3da: Visual interactive instruction tuning for omni-3d understanding reasoning and planning,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 26428–26438

    2024

  4. [12]

    Grounded 3d-llm with referent tokens,

    Yilun Chen, Shuai Yang, Haifeng Huang, Tai Wang, et al., “Grounded 3d-llm with referent tokens,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10370, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision language model,

    An-Chieh Cheng, Hongxu Yin, Yang Fu, Qiushan Guo, Ruihan Yang, and ohters, “Spatialrgpt: Grounded spatial reasoning in vision language model,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01584, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities,

    Boyuan Chen, Zhuo Xu, Sean Kirmani, Brain Ichter, Dorsa Sadigh, et al., “Spatialvlm: Endowing vision-language models with spatial reasoning capabilities,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 14455–14465

    2024

  7. [15]

    M3dbench: Let’s instruct large models with multi-modal 3d prompts,

    Mingsheng Li, Xin Chen, Chi Zhang, Sijin Chen, Hongyuan Zhu, Fukun Yin, Gang Yu, and Tao Chen, “M3dbench: Let’s instruct large models with multi-modal 3d prompts,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10763, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Mmscan: A multi-modal 3d scene dataset with hierarchical grounded language annotations,

    Ruiyuan Lyu, Tai Wang, Jingli Lin, Shuai Yang, Xiaohan Mao, Yilun Chen, Runsen Xu, Haifeng Huang, Chenming Zhu, Dahua Lin, et al., “Mmscan: A multi-modal 3d scene dataset with hierarchical grounded language annotations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09401, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Scanqa: 3d question answering for spatial scene understanding,

    Daichi Azuma, Taiki Miyanishi, Shuhei Kurita, and Motoaki Kawanabe, “Scanqa: 3d question answering for spatial scene understanding,” in proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 19129–19139

    2022

  10. [18]

    Sqa3d: Situated question answering in 3d scenes,

    Xiaojian Ma, Silong Yong, Zilong Zheng, Qing Li, Yitao Liang, Song- Chun Zhu, and Siyuan Huang, “Sqa3d: Situated question answering in 3d scenes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07474, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Multi3drefer: Grounding text description to multiple 3d objects,

    Yiming Zhang, ZeMing Gong, and Angel X Chang, “Multi3drefer: Grounding text description to multiple 3d objects,” inProceedings of the CVPR, 2023, pp. 15225–15236

    2023

  12. [20]

    Scanrefer: 3d object localization in rgb-d scans using natural language,

    Dave Zhenyu Chen, Angel X Chang, and Matthias Nießner, “Scanrefer: 3d object localization in rgb-d scans using natural language,” inEuropean conference on computer vision. Springer, 2020, pp. 202–221

    2020

  13. [21]

    Scan2cap: Context-aware dense captioning in rgb-d scans,

    Zhenyu Chen, Ali Gholami, et al., “Scan2cap: Context-aware dense captioning in rgb-d scans,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 3193–3203

    2021

  14. [22]

    Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes,

    Angela Dai, Angel X Chang, Manolis Savva, Maciej Halber, Thomas Funkhouser, and Matthias Nießner, “Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and J Guibas, “Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Deep hough voting for 3d object detection in point clouds,

    Charles R Qi, Or Litany, Kaiming He, and J Guibas, “Deep hough voting for 3d object detection in point clouds,” inproceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 9277–9286

    2019

  17. [25]

    V ote2cap-detr++: Decoupling localization and describing for end-to-end 3d dense captioning,

    Sijin Chen, Hongyuan Zhu, Mingsheng Li, Xin Chen, Peng Guo, Yinjie Lei, YU Gang, Taihao Li, and Tao Chen, “V ote2cap-detr++: Decoupling localization and describing for end-to-end 3d dense captioning,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation,

    Ramakrishna Vedantam, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Devi Parikh, “Cider: Consensus-based image description evaluation,” inProceedings of CVPR, 2015, pp. 4566–4575

    2015

  19. [27]

    Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu, “Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation,” inProceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2002, pp. 311–318

    2002

  20. [28]

    Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments,

    Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie, “Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments,” in Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summarization, 2005, pp. 65–72

    2005

  21. [29]

    Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,

    Chin-Yew Lin, “Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries,” inText summarization branches out, 2004, pp. 74–81

    2004

  22. [30]

    3d-vista: Pre-trained transformer for 3d vision and text alignment,

    Ziyu Zhu, Xiaojian Ma, Yixin Chen, Zhidong Deng, Siyuan Huang, and Qing Li, “3d-vista: Pre-trained transformer for 3d vision and text alignment,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 2911–2921

    2023

  23. [31]

    Llm- grounder: Open-vocabulary 3d visual grounding with large language model as an agent,

    Jianing Yang, Xuweiyi Chen, Shengyi Qian, Nikhil Madaan, et al., “Llm- grounder: Open-vocabulary 3d visual grounding with large language model as an agent,”2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 7694–7701, 2023

    2024

  24. [32]

    Scanreason: Empowering 3d visual grounding with reasoning capabilities,

    Chenming Zhu, Tai Wang, Wenwei Zhang, Kai Chen, and Xihui Liu, “Scanreason: Empowering 3d visual grounding with reasoning capabilities,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2407.01525, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Least absolute relative error estimation,

    Kani Chen, Shaojun Guo, Yuanyuan Lin, and Zhiliang Ying, “Least absolute relative error estimation,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 105, no. 491, pp. 1104–1112, 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models,

    Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al., “Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models,

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Alma- hairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al., “Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. APPENDIX In this ...

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    • Answer:

    Example of 3D object distance measurement task: •Scene:scene0011_00 • Question:"Object A is described as: ’There is a set of bottom kitchen cabinets in the room. It has a microwave in the middle of it. ’ Object B is described as: ’You are looking for a chair on the side of the...

  29. [37]

    We follow the ap- proach used in [33], employingabsolute relative error (ARE) to evaluate distance prediction accuracy

    Evaluation metrics of 3D object distance measurement task:To assess the accuracy of distance predictions, we draw inspiration from the evaluation of 3D-VG, focusing on the localization accuracy of Objects A and B. We follow the ap- proach used in [33], employingabsolute relati...

  30. [38]

    • Answer:

    Example of 3D layout editing task: •Object Movement - Scene:scene0011_00 • Question:"Based on the provided description, ’this is a brown cabinet, it sets along the wall, right next to a window. ’ Move the object that closely matches this description forward by 110 units, and t...

  31. [39]

    the table has pieces of literature atop it, it is to the immediate right of another table.\

    Evaluation metrics of 3D layout editing task:To evaluate the accuracy of object editing in the scene, we follow the metrics used in the 3D-VG task, calculating the Intersection over Union (IoU) between the predicted bounding box and the ground truth to assess the rationality o...

  32. [53]

    The spatial distance from Object A to Object B on the x-axis is 191 units, on the y- axis is 198 units, and on the z-axis is 33 units

    Object B is a pillow located at 220, 232, 48, 47, 25, 21. The spatial distance from Object A to Object B on the x-axis is 191 units, on the y- axis is 198 units, and on the z-axis is 33 units. Fig. 2:Qualitative Results.We provide several visualization results on various 3D vi...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.