Context-aware Alignment and Mutual Masking for 3D-Language Pre-training
Abstract
3D visual language reasoning plays an important role in effective human-computer interaction. The current approaches for 3D visual reasoning are task-specific, and lack pre-training methods to learn generic representations that can transfer across various tasks. Despite the encouraging progress in vision-language pre-training for image-text data, 3D-language pre-training is still an open issue due to limited 3D-language paired data, highly sparse and irregular structure of point clouds and ambiguities in spatial relations of 3D objects with viewpoint changes. In this paper, we present a generic 3D-language pre-training approach, that tackles multiple facets of 3D-language reasoning by learning universal representations. Our learning objective constitutes two main parts. 1) Context aware spatial-semantic alignment to establish fine-grained correspondence between point clouds and texts. It reduces relational ambiguities by aligning 3D spatial relationships with textual semantic context. 2) Mutual 3D-Language Masked modeling to enable cross-modality information exchange. Instead of reconstructing sparse 3D points for which language can hardly provide cues, we propose masked proposal reasoning to learn semantic class and mask-invariant representations. Our proposed 3D-language pre-training method achieves promising results once adapted to various downstream tasks, including 3D visual grounding, 3D dense captioning and 3D question answering. Our codes are available at https://github.com/leolyj/3D-VLP
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Existing denoising methods mainly follow modality-specific denoising and cross-modality denoising.
“Existing denoising methods mainly have two directions: modality-specific denoising [297,298] and cross-modality denoising [299,300,301].”
From Multimodal fusion and vision–language models: A survey for robot vision (2026) · cites this paper as [301]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 66 · Cited by 56
- Authors
- Jin, Z., Hayat, M., Yang, Y., Guo, Y., & Lei, Y.
- Affiliations
- Sichuan University
- Monash University (AU)
- Sichuan University (CN)
- Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
- Venue
- 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2023-06
- Pages
- 10984-10994
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4386066792
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 5.98
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62276176, U20A20185,61972435)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › 3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Keywords
- point clouds, masked modeling, cross-modal representation learning, 3D visual grounding, viewpoint invariance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review