Cited by 20Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsRobot Manipulation and Learning3D Shape Modeling and Analysis

Bridging the Gap between 2D and 3D Visual Question Answering: A Fusion Approach for 3D VQA

Open access
Mo, Wentao, Liu, Yang·2024·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

In 3D Visual Question Answering (3D VQA), the scarcity of fully annotated data and limited visual content diversity hampers the generalization to novel scenes and 3D concepts (e.g., only around 800 scenes are utilized in ScanQA and SQA dataset). Current approaches resort supplement 3D reasoning with 2D information. However, these methods face challenges: either they use top-down 2D views that introduce overly complex and sometimes question-irrelevant visual clues, or they rely on globally aggregated scene/image-level representations from 2D VLMs, losing the fine-grained vision-language correlations. To overcome these limitations, our approach utilizes question-conditional 2D view selection procedure, pinpointing semantically relevant 2D inputs for crucial visual clues. We then integrate this 2D knowledge into the 3D-VQA system via a two-branch Transformer structure. This structure, featuring a Twin-Transformer design, compactly combines 2D and 3D modalities and captures fine-grained correlations between modalities, allowing them mutually augmenting each other. Integrating proposed mechanisms above, we present BridgeQA, that offers a fresh perspective on multi-modal transformer-based architectures for 3D-VQA. Experiments validate that BridgeQA achieves state-of-the-art on 3D-VQA datasets and significantly outperforms existing solutions. Code is available at https://github.com/matthewdm0816/BridgeQA.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v38i5.28222

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In multispectral image fusion, noise can be removed by jointly optimising different modal data through a variational model.

    “e.g., in multispectral image fusion tasks, noise is removed by jointly optimising different modal data through a variational model [298].”

    From Multimodal fusion and vision–language models: A survey for robot vision (2026) · cites this paper as [298]

    The 2D-3D VQA Model and Question Answering sections describe fusing 2D images with 3D scene features and jointly optimizing answer predictions, not removing noise from multispectral images. Searches for multispectral fusion, denoising, and variational optimization found no passage addressing the claim; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 [298]

    The 2D-3D VQA Model section describes fusion and cross-attention between visual modalities, not denoising. Searches for “modality-specific denoising,” “cross-modality denoising,” and noise-related terms found no passage in our copy classifying existing denoising methods into those two directions. The available passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mo, W., & Liu, Y.
Affiliations
Peking University (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2024-03-24
Volume
38
Issue
5
Pages
4261-4268
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W4393148632
Cited by
20
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 3
FWCI
4.14
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (62372014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › 3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Keywords
2D-3D fusion, multimodal transformer, 3D point clouds, vision-language models

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