Current feed-forward 3D/4D reconstruction systems rely on dense geometry and pose supervision -- expensive to obtain at scale and particularly scarce for dynamic real-world scenes. We present Flow3r, a framework that augments visual geometry learning with dense 2D correspondences (`flow') as supervision, enabling scalable training from unlabeled monocular videos. Our key insight is that the flow prediction module should be factored: predicting flow between two images using geometry latents from one and pose latents from the other. This factorization directly guides the learning of both scene geometry and camera motion, and naturally extends to dynamic scenes. In controlled experiments, we show that factored flow prediction outperforms alternative designs and that performance scales consistently with unlabeled data. Integrating factored flow into existing visual geometry architectures and training with ∼800K unlabeled videos, Flow3r achieves state-of-the-art results across eight benchmarks spanning static and dynamic scenes, with its largest gains on in-the-wild dynamic videos where labeled data is most scarce.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Mechanisms for flow prediction. (a) The visual geometry backbone first extracts the camera token and patch tokens of each input. (b) Existing correspondence heads [ 39 ] predict flow directly from local features via matching. (c) Flow can also be obtained by explicitly projecting predicted 3D points into another view via decoded camera parameters. However, this projection-based formulation is restricted to static scenes and sensitive to geometric errors. (d) Our factored flow approach conditions source-view geometry latents on the target-view camera latent and decodes dense correspondences directly in latent space, providing a geometry-aware and robust flow prediction mechanism that naturally extends to dynamic scenes.
Figure 3: Overview of Flow3r . Flow3r predicts visual geometry using factored flow supervision, enabling scalable geometry learning from unlabeled videos. Each input image is encoded and processed by the multi-view transformer to produce camera tokens and patch tokens. For data with dense geometry and pose labels, we directly supervise the patch tokens and camera tokens with the corresponding labels. For unlabeled datasets without geometry and pose supervision, we predict flow between two frames in a factorized manner, supervised by the pseudo labels from an off-the-shelf 2D flow prediction model [ 46 ] . To obtain the factored flow, we fuse the patch features of one frame with the camera features of another, and decode the fused representation through the DPT head to produce dense flow predictions.
Static Scenes
Dynamic Scenes
Model Variant
Data (# Seqs)
RRA@30 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
CD ↓
MSE ↓
Data (# Seqs)
RRA@30 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
CD ↓
MSE ↓
3d-sup
ScanNet++ ( 1 K)
0.7500
0.6929
0.030
0.088
OmniWorld ( 1 K)
66.01
62.37
0.105
0.637
flow-projective
+ ScanNet++ ( 1 K)
0.6700
0.4572
0.033
0.088
+ SpatialVID ( 3 K)
61.23
56.12
0.158
0.710
flow-tracking
+ ScanNet++ ( 1 K)
0.7438
0.7021
0.030
0.089
+ SpatialVID ( 3 K)
68.56
62.95
0.107
0.628
flow-factored
+ ScanNet++ ( 1 K)
0.7700
0.7366
0.026
0.078
+ SpatialVID ( 3 K)
76.26
68.84
0.103
0.598
Table 1: Does factored flow prediction help visual geometry learning? We evaluate the camera and geometry prediction of a model trained with only 3D labeled data and variants that use additional unlabeled data via flow supervision. We find that on both static and dynamic scenes, our proposed factored flow prediction ( flow-factored ) yields consistent gains over the model variant without additional unlabeled data ( 3d-sup ) as well as other flow-supervised alternatives.
Figure 4: Factored flow prediction aids visual geometry learning. Compared with the baseline ( 3d-sup ) and alternative formulations that use flow supervision ( flow-projective , flow-tracking ), Flow3r ( flow-factored ) yields more accurate scene reconstruction, highlighting the benefits of unlabeled data and our factored flow formulation.
Figure 5: Scaling with unlabeled videos. With factored flow supervision, increasing the amount of unlabeled SpatialVID data progressively improves dynamic-scene reconstruction quality, even surpassing the model with additional 3D-labeled training data.
Figure 6: Qualitative results on in-the-wild data. We compare the reconstructions from Flow3r with representative feedforward reconstruction methods on in-the-wild multi-view images from static scenes, dynamic scenes, and interaction videos. We observe that Flow3r infers cleaner and more accurate scene structure than baselines that often yield misaligned outputs or infer inaccurate motion.
Methods
Kinetics700
EPIC-KITCHENS
Sintel
Bonn
RPE trans ↓
RPE rot ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@5 ↑
RPE trans ↓
RPE rot ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@5 ↑
RPE trans ↓
RPE rot ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@5 ↑
RPE trans ↓
RPE rot ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@5 ↑
DUSt3R
0.063
9.343
0.366
0.533
0.110
8.492
0.312
0.528
0.179
15.166
0.622
0.271
0.113
6.384
0.116
0.800
CUT3R
0.027
1.988
0.303
0.573
0.081
4.709
0.338
0.493
0.128
1.998
0.676
0.217
0.095
6.349
0.088
0.899
VGGT
0.038
1.392
0.347
0.479
0.049
3.025
0.220
0.617
0.086
1.220
0.595
0.311
0.096
6.021
0.082
0.884
π3
0.023
1.006
0.267
0.585
0.043
3.025
0.200
0.620
0.066
1.122
0.523
0.317
0.095
6.240
0.076
0.905
Flow3r
0.018
0.830
0.256
0.599
0.037
2.729
0.199
0.622
0.058
0.920
0.426
0.404
0.094
6.262
0.052
0.954
Table 2: Comparison on dynamic datasets. We evaluate the camera (RPE rot and trans) and geometry prediction (MSE and f-score) for dynamic scene reconstruction across different datasets. Best, second and third results are highlighted in light red, orange, and yellow, respectively. Flow3r consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods in both camera pose estimation and scene reconstruction, demonstrating the effectiveness of leveraging large-scale unlabeled videos for visual geometry learning via factored-flow supervision.
Methods
Co3Dv2
Scannet
NRGBD
7-scenes
RTA@30 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
MSE ↓
f-score@5 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
MSE ↓
f-score@5 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
MSE ↓
f-score@5 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
MSE ↓
f-score@5 ↑
DUSt3R
90.68
68.11
0.223
0.783
57.14
31.56
0.092
0.831
93.25
76.04
0.063
0.865
76.59
55.07
0.170
0.714
CUT3R
90.68
68.11
0.278
0.737
71.39
42.30
0.132
0.740
95.63
76.90
0.075
0.808
81.15
59.72
0.183
0.695
VGGT
97.27
87.62
0.151
0.874
93.71
71.37
0.053
0.931
99.21
93.13
0.032
0.964
86.51
69.77
0.182
0.665
π3
97.49
90.53
0.151
0.874
91.14
69.39
0.058
0.930
99.20
90.40
0.021
0.983
87.69
71.80
0.169
0.737
Flow3r
97.62
90.41
0.150
0.876
92.89
71.00
0.053
0.943
99.60
94.40
0.018
0.992
91.66
75.76
0.102
0.807
Table 3: Comparison on static datasets. We evaluate the camera (RTA and AUC) and geometry prediction (MSE and f-score) for static scene reconstruction from the multi-view input. Best, second and third results are highlighted in light red, orange, and yellow, respectively. Flow3r outperforms state-of-the-art methods, indicating that the gains from incorporating unlabeled dynamic videos for visual geometry learning also transfer to static scenes.
Data
Metrics
Labeled (# Seqs)
Unlabeled (# Seqs)
RRA@30 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
CD ↓
MSE ↓
OmniWorld ( 1 K)
-
66.01
62.37
0.105
0.637
OmniWorld ( 1 K)
SpatialVID ( 3 K)
76.26
68.84
0.103
0.598
OmniWorld ( 1 K)
SpatialVID ( 10 K)
78.45
68.82
0.077
0.560
OmniWorld ( 1 K)
SpatialVID ( 20 K)
81.12
71.21
0.075
0.532
OmniWorld ( 4 K)
-
78.68
70.26
0.080
0.565
Table 4: Scaling with unlabeled videos for dynamic visual geometry learning. We train model variants on OmniWorld [ 50 ] (labeled 3D supervision) together with increasing amounts of SpatialVID [ 38 ] (unlabeled videos with flow supervision). Performance improves consistently as we scale up the unlabeled data.
Base
3D Sup.
Flow Loss
EPIC-KITCHENS
7-scenes
Labeled
Unlabeled
trans ↓
rot ↓
MSE ↓
f-score ↑
RTA ↑
AUC ↑
MSE ↓
f-score ↑
VGGT
N/A (base model)
0.049
3.025
0.220
0.617
86.51
69.77
0.182
0.665
✓
✗
✗
0.050
3.005
0.218
0.530
88.10
68.23
0.167
0.750
✓
✓
✗
0.045
3.005
0.203
0.530
89.17
68.22
0.167
0.749
✓
✓
✓
0.039
2.808
0.202
0.599
90.67
71.75
0.166
0.750
π3
N/A (base model)
0.043
3.025
0.200
0.620
87.69
71.80
0.169
0.737
Table 5: Effect of adding unlabeled videos via flow supervision. For each backbone (VGGT [ 39 ] and π3 [ 42 ] ), we compare a 3D supervision only baseline, a labeled multi-task model (geometry + flow), and the full model incorporating additional unlabeled data via flow supervision. This demonstrates the effectiveness of unlabeled data via flow supervision for visual geometry learning.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model Variant
Data (# Seqs)
RRA ↑
RTA ↑
CD ↓
MSE ↓
AEPE ↓
EPE@5px ↑
flow-projective
+ SpatialVID ( 3 K)
61.23
56.12
0.158
0.710
30.24
24.15
flow-tracking
+ SpatialVID ( 3 K)
68.56
62.95
0.107
0.628
18.82
43.26
flow-factored
+ SpatialVID ( 3 K)
76.26
68.84
0.103
0.598
23.29
36.42
Appendix
Table 6: Pose, geometry, and flow evaluation.
Data
Metrics
Labeled (# Seqs)
Unlabeled (# Seqs)
RRA ↑
RTA ↑
CD ↓
MSE ↓
OmniWorld ( 1 K)
-
66.01
62.37
0.105
0.637
OmniWorld ( 1 K)
SpatialVID ( 3 K)
76.26
68.84
0.103
0.598
OmniWorld ( 1 K)+SpatialVID ( 3 K)
-
75.99
65.30
0.108
0.625
OmniWorld ( 4 K)
-
78.68
70.26
0.080
0.565
Appendix
Table 7: Ablating pseudo-labeled 3D as supervision.
Methods
Kinetics700
ATE ↓
RPE trans ↓
RPE rot ↓
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
CD ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@2% ↑
f-score@5% ↑
DUSt3R
0.045
0.063
9.343
0.083
0.106
0.095
0.366
0.317
0.533
CUT3R
0.019
0.027
1.988
0.070
0.076
0.073
0.303
0.352
0.573
VGGT
0.027
0.038
1.392
0.088
0.120
0.104
0.347
0.258
0.479
π3
0.016
0.023
1.006
0.059
0.097
0.078
0.267
0.347
0.585
Flow3r
0.013
0.018
0.830
0.062
0.092
0.077
0.256
0.371
0.599
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison on Kinetics700.
Methods
EPIC-KITCHENS
ATE ↓
RPE trans ↓
RPE rot ↓
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
CD ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@2% ↑
f-score@5% ↑
DUSt3R
0.077
0.110
8.492
0.100
0.092
0.096
0.312
0.385
0.528
CUT3R
0.056
0.081
4.709
0.085
0.095
0.090
0.338
0.297
0.493
VGGT
0.032
0.049
3.025
0.061
0.069
0.065
0.220
0.415
0.617
π3
0.032
0.043
3.025
0.069
0.058
0.059
0.200
0.459
0.620
Flow3r
0.032
0.037
2.729
0.066
0.056
0.059
0.199
0.339
0.622
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison on EPIC-KITCHENS.
Methods
Sintel
ATE ↓
RPE trans ↓
RPE rot ↓
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
CD ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@2% ↑
f-score@5% ↑
DUSt3R
0.152
0.179
15.166
0.255
0.224
0.240
0.622
0.124
0.271
CUT3R
0.111
0.128
1.998
0.221
0.269
0.245
0.676
0.111
0.217
VGGT
0.090
0.086
1.220
0.217
0.227
0.222
0.595
0.105
0.311
π3
0.060
0.066
1.122
0.189
0.191
0.190
0.523
0.141
0.317
Flow3r
0.048
0.058
0.920
0.153
0.104
0.129
0.426
0.201
0.404
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison on Sintel.
Methods
Bonn
ATE ↓
RPE trans ↓
RPE rot ↓
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
CD ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@2% ↑
f-score@5% ↑
DUSt3R
0.055
0.113
6.384
0.029
0.037
0.033
0.116
0.546
0.800
CUT3R
0.021
0.095
6.349
0.018
0.023
0.021
0.088
0.658
0.899
VGGT
0.011
0.096
6.021
0.016
0.028
0.021
0.082
0.644
0.884
π3
0.016
0.095
6.240
0.014
0.025
0.019
0.076
0.669
0.905
Flow3r
0.009
0.094
6.262
0.009
0.018
0.013
0.052
0.801
0.954
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison on Bonn.
Methods
7-scenes
RRA@30 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
CD ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@2% ↑
f-score@5% ↑
DUSt3R
100.0
76.59
55.07
0.047
0.053
0.050
0.170
0.457
0.714
CUT3R
100.0
81.15
59.72
0.055
0.049
0.052
0.183
0.457
0.695
VGGT
100.0
86.51
69.77
0.052
0.056
0.054
0.182
0.395
0.665
π3
100.0
87.69
71.80
0.039
0.045
0.042
0.169
0.473
0.737
Flow3r
100.0
91.66
75.76
0.025
0.016
0.020
0.102
0.729
0.807
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison on 7-scenes.
Methods
NRGBD
RRA@30 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
CD ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@2% ↑
f-score@5% ↑
DUSt3R
100.0
93.25
76.04
0.031
0.024
0.027
0.063
0.662
0.865
CUT3R
100.0
95.63
76.90
0.042
0.019
0.030
0.075
0.549
0.808
VGGT
100.0
99.21
93.13
0.015
0.010
0.012
0.032
0.833
0.964
π3
100.0
99.20
90.40
0.010
0.007
0.008
0.021
0.910
0.983
Flow3r
100.0
99.60
94.40
0.008
0.005
0.007
0.018
0.938
0.992
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison on NRGBD.
Methods
Scannet
RRA@30 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
CD ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@2% ↑
f-score@5% ↑
DUSt3R
100.0
57.14
31.56
0.031
0.032
0.032
0.092
0.591
0.831
CUT3R
99.39
71.39
42.30
0.053
0.034
0.043
0.132
0.499
0.740
VGGT
100.0
93.71
71.37
0.015
0.019
0.017
0.053
0.769
0.931
π3
99.75
91.14
69.39
0.016
0.022
0.019
0.058
0.762
0.930
Flow3r
100.0
92.89
71.00
0.015
0.018
0.016
0.053
0.780
0.943
Appendix
Table 14: Comparison on Scannet.
Methods
Co3Dv2
RRA@30 ↑
RTA@30 ↑
AUC@30 ↑
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
CD ↓
MSE ↓
f-score@2% ↑
f-score@5% ↑
DUSt3R
97.07
90.91
66.83
0.036
0.069
0.033
0.223
0.567
0.783
CUT3R
93.85
90.68
68.11
0.047
0.082
0.064
0.278
0.507
0.737
VGGT
98.41
97.27
87.62
0.022
0.051
0.036
0.151
0.707
0.874
π3
98.82
97.49
90.53
0.022
0.052
0.037
0.151
0.707
0.874
Flow3r
98.84
97.62
90.41
0.020
0.052
0.037
0.150
0.709
0.876
Appendix
Table 15: Comparison on Co3Dv2.
Figure 7: More qualitative results on dynamic scenes. Flow3r effectively handles dynamic components, yielding cleaner geometry than prior feed-forward methods.
Figure 8: More qualitative results on static scenes and interaction videos. The first six examples show static scenes and the last two examples feature interaction videos. Flow3r tends to produce more stable geometry under motion, though some challenging cases still show noticeable artifacts.
Recent advances in 3D reconstruction enable the extraction of temporally consistent 3D motion from RGB observations; however, current Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models still predominantly rely on 2D image-text priors. Therefore, they do not accurately represent the fundamental dynamics of the 3D world associated with physical actions. This over-reliance on static 2D visual cues limits the capacity of VLA models in achieving robust robot manipulation. To address these limitations, we introduce FlowVLA, a reconstruction-guided, pluggable 3D flow learning framework aimed at empowering VLA models with an inherent understanding of action-relevant dynamics. Instead of requiring explicit 3D sensor inputs or altering the inference-time architecture, our method is designed to utilize temporally aligned 3D flow only during training. This allows the model to learn the dynamic evolution of the physical scene while preserving the computational efficiency of conventional 2D VLA backbones. To bridge scene-level dynamics with robotic manipulation, we propose a modular 3D flow learning framework with dual-level flow supervision. Specifically, point-level flow guides the model to forecast the future displacements of task-critical 3D points, while TCP-level flow aggregates these motions to align with the robot's TCP trajectories. This dual-level flow supervision encourages the model to focus on semantically meaningful dynamic regions, effectively coupling scene-level motion with precise control signals. Extensive evaluations across simulation and real-world experiments demonstrate that FlowVLA consistently improves manipulation performance, zero-shot robustness, and optimizes data efficiency. FlowVLA adds only lightweight auxiliary heads during training and discards them at inference. Therefore, FlowVLA introduces no additional 3D sensor inputs, architectural modifications, or inference-time computation.
Feed-forward 3D reconstruction models have achieved remarkable progress through large-scale training and strong learned priors. However, they remain fragile when applied to dynamic in-the-wild videos, where non-rigid motion, occlusions, and illumination changes are prevalent. A key limitation lies in their reliance on expensive depth and camera pose annotations, which hinders scaling to diverse real-world dynamic data and restricts generalization. To address this issue, we propose PURE, an unlabeled post-training refinement framework that improves depth and camera estimation without requiring ground-truth supervision. Instead of relying on annotations, PURE elegantly distills robust structural knowledge from state-of-the-art 2D priors into 4D feed-forward architectures. PURE leverages relative depth constraints, affine-invariant geometry distillation, and pose refinement based on feature correspondences to stabilize geometric predictions under challenging dynamic conditions. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world dynamic benchmarks demonstrate that PURE delivers consistent improvements across multiple state-of-the-art architectures. Furthermore, our data-efficient paradigm effectively mitigates domain shifts, successfully unlocking the architectural limits of these base models in challenging, in-the-wild dynamic scenes.
Yaolong Zhu, Peng Li, Jiahao Lu +8
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ultra High Definition Immersive Media Technology, Shenzhen Graduate School, Peking University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Pengcheng Laboratory
Reliable 3D dynamic perception requires models that can anticipate motion beyond predefined categories, yet progress is hindered by the scarcity of dense, high-quality motion annotations. While self-supervision on unlabeled real data offers a path forward, empirical evidence suggests that scaling unlabeled data fails to close the performance gap due to noisy proxy signals. In this paper, we propose learning robust real-world motion priors entirely from scalable simulation. We introduce SynFlow, a data generation pipeline for large-scale synthetic LiDAR scene flow. Unlike prior works that prioritize sensor-specific realism, SynFlow employs a motion-oriented strategy to synthesize diverse kinematic patterns across 4,000 sequences (∼940k frames), termed SynFlow-4k. This represents a 34× scale-up in annotated volume over existing real-world benchmarks. Our experiments demonstrate that SynFlow-4k provides a highly domain-invariant motion prior. In a zero-shot regime, models trained only on our synthetic data generalize across multiple real-world benchmarks, comparable to in-domain supervised baselines on nuScenes and outperforming state-of-the-art methods on TruckScenes by 31.8%. Furthermore, SynFlow-4k serves as a label-efficient foundation: fine-tuning with only 5% of real-world labels surpasses models trained from scratch on the full available budget. We open-source the pipeline and dataset to facilitate research in generalizable 3D motion estimation. More detail can be found at https://kin-zhang.github.io/SynFlow.
Qingwen Zhang, Xiaomeng Zhu, Chenhan Jiang +1
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China