ArtPro: Self-Supervised Articulated Object Reconstruction with Adaptive Integration of Mobility Proposals

Xuelu Li; Zhaonan Wang; Xiaogang Wang; Lei Wu; Manyi Li; Changhe Tu

cs.CVFeb 26, 2026

ArtPro: Self-Supervised Articulated Object Reconstruction with Adaptive Integration of Mobility Proposals

Authors: Xuelu Li, Zhaonan Wang, Xiaogang Wang, Lei Wu, Manyi Li, Changhe Tu

Organizations: Shandong University · Southwest University

Abstract

Reconstructing articulated objects into high-fidelity digital twins is crucial for applications such as robotic manipulation and interactive simulation. Recent self-supervised methods using differentiable rendering frameworks like 3D Gaussian Splatting remain highly sensitive to the initial part segmentation. Their reliance on heuristic clustering or pre-trained models often causes optimization to converge to local minima, especially for complex multi-part objects. To address these limitations, we propose ArtPro, a novel self-supervised framework that introduces adaptive integration of mobility proposals. Our approach begins with an over-segmentation initialization guided by geometry features and motion priors, generating part proposals with plausible motion hypotheses. During optimization, we dynamically merge these proposals by analyzing motion consistency among spatial neighbors, while a collision-aware motion pruning mechanism prevents erroneous kinematic estimation. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world objects demonstrate that ArtPro achieves robust reconstruction of complex multi-part objects, significantly outperforming existing methods in accuracy and stability.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Existing methods like ArtGS [ 33 ] are highly sensitive to initial part segmentation, leading to inaccurate motion and geometry. Our method, ArtPro, leverages a prior-guided mobility initialization and adaptively merges mobility proposals during optimization, achieving robust reconstruction of complex multi-part articulated objects.

Figure 2: ArtPro reconstructs articulated objects from multi-view RGBD images of two states. The pipeline begins by initializing part-motion proposals through over-segmentation and a mixed-variable search. These proposals are then refined via a self-supervised optimization that updates the parts and their motion parameters using transformable 3D Gaussians. The optimization incorporates motion pruning and proposal integration operations to calibrate motions and merge proposals into coherent movable parts. Finally, a post-processing refinement stabilizes the appearance, geometry, and motion parameters of the reconstruction.

		Table 34178 (5 parts)	Storage 40417 (7 parts)	Window 103238 (3 parts)	Table 23372 (5 parts)	Storage 45759 (5 parts)	Table 33116 (4 parts)	Table 34610 (6 parts)	Storage 47585 (11 parts)	All
Axis Ang	DTA [ 46 ]	46.62	20.40	4.60	33.58	6.10	2.17	34.19	31.74	22.42
	ArtGS [ 33 ]	4.64	F	0.02	39.52	16.68	0.04	F	0.97	8.70 $\ {}^{\text{F}}$
	Ours	0.05	0.07	0.06	0.06	0.03	0.02	0.09	0.16	0.07
Axis Pos	DTA [ 46 ]	21.68	3.37	-	2.90	0.66	0.01	-	1.15	4.96
	ArtGS [ 33 ]	1.42	F	-	1.46	0.05	0.00	-	0.00	0.32 $\ {}^{\text{F}}$
	Ours	0.00	0.00	-	0.00	0.00	0.00	-	0.00	0.00

Table 1: Quantitative evaluation on our dataset. Lower(

\downarrow

) is better on all metrics. We mark all joint type prediction errors and movable part count prediction errors with F . Window-103238 and Table-34610 are prismatic with no Axis Pos.

		Table 25493 (4 parts)	Table 31249 (5 parts)	Storage 45503 (4 parts)	Storage 47468 (7 parts)	Oven 101908 (4 parts)	All
Axis Ang	DTA	24.35	20.62	51.18	19.07	17.83	26.61
	ArtGS	1.16	0.04	0.02	0.14	0.04	0.28
	Ours	0.08	0.04	0.03	0.07	0.01	0.05
Axis Pos	DTA	-	4.20	2.44	0.31	6.51	3.37
	ArtGS	-	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.01	0.01
	Ours	-	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00

Table 2: ArtGS-Multi dataset [ 33 ] results. Lower(

\downarrow

) is better on all metrics. Table-25493 is prismatic with no Axis Pos.

Figure 3: The part initialization and reconstruction results of ArtGS [ 33 ] and ours on two-part objects. Although our approach doesn’t merge the two disadjacent movable parts (second row), we still obtain accurate motion and geometry reconstruction.

Figure 4: The reconstructed articulated objects in different motion states ( $t=\{0,0.5,1\}$ ) and their part-motion structures.

Figure 5: The intermediate results during our adaptive proposal integration optimization. We show the optimized Gaussians (with their center points) and the estimated motions before the proposal integration operation at each cycle.

Figure 6: Ablation study results. To compare with our $OverSeg$ initialization, we use DBSCAN [ 7 ] as our clustering implementation, denoted $Vanilla$ . We further add motion initialization to $Vanilla$ and $OverSeg$ baseline, denoted $w/\ MoI$ . Finally, we removed the pruning strategy from $Full$ ( $w/o\ Prune$ ) to verify its significant.

Figure 7: Reconstructed results of real-world articulated objects.

Case	OverSeg	MoI	Merge	Prune	CD-s	$\overline{\text{CD}}$ -m	CD-w
#1					1.46	9.27	0.93
#2		✓			1.04	6.97	0.67
#3	✓	✓			0.87	5.01	0.71
#4	✓	✓	✓		0.85	4.57	0.67
Full	✓	✓	✓	✓	0.84	3.63	0.65

Table 3: Quantitative evaluation of the ablation study. Lower(

\downarrow

) is better on all metrics. To evaluate the results with arbitrary numbers of movable parts, we compute CD between the merged movable results and GT movable parts, denoted as over

\overline{\text{CD}}

-m.

Appendix figures & tables11 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

		Synthetic Objects											Real Objects
		FoldChair	Fridge	Laptop	Oven	Scissor	Stapler	USB	Washer	Blade	Storage	All	Fridge	Storage	All
Axis Ang	PARIS* [ 25 ]	15.79	2.93	0.03	7.43	16.62	8.17	0.71	0.71	41.28	0.03	9.37	1.90	30.10	16.00
	ArticulatedGS [ 11 ]	6.20	0.14	15.55	0.00	0.07	0.08	0.16	0.03	0.23	0.04	2.25	4.06	48.56	26.31
	ArticulatedGS*	0.02	0.12	0.03	0.13	0.18	0.13	0.12	0.17	0.04	0.04	0.10	64.81	29.44	47.12
	DTA [ 46 ]	0.03	0.09	0.07	0.22	0.10	0.07	0.11	0.36	0.20	0.09	0.13	2.08	13.64	7.86
	ArtGS [ 33 ]	0.01	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.05	0.01	0.04	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.02	2.09	3.47	2.78

Appendix

Table 4: Results on the PARIS [ 25 ] dataset, including both synthetic and real data. Methods marked with an asterisk () denote versions with added depth supervision for fair comparison. Specifically, ArticulatedGS and PARIS* are trained with an additional depth loss.

Figure 8: Additional qualitative results on PARIS dataset, including the initializations and the final reconstructions. We show the Gaussians with their center points for a better visualization of their segmentation and motion parameters.

Figure 9: Additional reconstruction results on ArtGS-Multi dataset . We render the reconstructed articulated objects in different motion states ( $t\in\{0,0.5,1\}$ and their motion structures for each result.

Figure 10: Additional qualitative results on ArtGS-Multi dataset , including the initializations and the final reconstructions. We show the Gaussians with their center points for a better visualization of their segmentation and motion parameters.

Figure 11: Additional reconstruction results on our dataset . We render the reconstructed articulated objects in different motion states ( $t\in\{0,0.5,1\}$ and their motion structures for each result.

Figure 12: Additional qualitative results on our dataset , including the initializations and the final reconstructions. We show the Gaussians with their center points for a better visualization of their segmentation and motion parameters.

Method	PSNR	SSIM	LPIPS
ArtGS	36.10	0.980	0.037
Ours	48.02	0.998	0.003

Appendix

Table 5: Visual quality on our dataset.

Case	CD-s	$\overline{\text{CD}}$ -m	CD-w
w/o PM	0.85	4.26	0.68
w/o MoI	0.89	5.62	0.70
w/o MoI&PI	0.87	5.81	0.71
Full	0.84	3.63	0.65

Appendix

Table 6: Additional ablation study on our dataset.

Method	Time (min)	GPU Memory (GB)
DTA [ 46 ]	53.28 ${\scriptstyle\pm 23.78}$	10.58 ${\scriptstyle\pm 2.45}$
ArtGS [ 33 ]	10.41 ${\scriptstyle\pm 0.89}$	2.94 ${\scriptstyle\pm 0.04}$
Ours	16.93 ${\scriptstyle\pm 2.37}$	2.69 ${\scriptstyle\pm 0.23}$ *

Appendix

Table 7: Computation overhead comparison on our multi-part dataset. Time and memory are reported as mean

{\scriptstyle\pm}

std.

Figure 13: Failure cases. We illustrate failure cases of low-quality part boundaries. For low-quality RGBD images input, our method difficult to reconstruct the part boundaries.

Figure 14: Influence of noisy depth and mask.

Articulated Object Reconstruction

Articulated object reconstruction recovers 3D part geometry, joints, and motion from images, video, or depth for digital twins and robot interaction.

See all 60 papers

StructureGS: Structure-aware Gaussian Splatting for Articulated Object Reconstruction
Jul 29, 2026Gahye Lee, Gyoonseo Kim, Wonjong Jang +2Articulated Object Reconstruction 3D Gaussian Splatting
POSTECH, South Korea
GaussianArt: Unified Modeling of Geometry and Motion for Articulated Objects
Aug 20, 2025Licheng Shen, Saining Zhang, Honghan Li +4Articulated Object Reconstruction 3D Gaussian Splatting
BAAI · AIR, THU · NTU +2
MonoArt: Progressive Structural Reasoning for Monocular Articulated 3D Reconstruction
Mar 19, 2026Haitian Li, Haozhe Xie, Junxiang Xu +3Articulated Object Reconstruction Monocular 3D Reconstruction
S-Lab, Nanyang Technological University, 637335 Singapore

Jul 29, 2026J/K move · Enter open · S save

StructureGS: Structure-aware Gaussian Splatting for Articulated Object Reconstruction

Gahye Lee, Gyoonseo Kim, Wonjong Jang, Jooeun Son+1

POSTECH, South Korea

Articulated Object Reconstruction 3D Gaussian Splatting 3D Part Segmentation

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

Reconstructing articulated objects with multiple movable parts is essential for understanding object structure and enabling physical interaction. However, this reconstruction task poses significant challenges due to the entanglement of geometry, appearance, and motion parameters during optimization. Existing methods rely primarily on photometric supervision, which commonly fails to disentangle these interdependent components, resulting in poor part decomposition with blurred boundaries and geometric artifacts. To address this limitation, we introduce StructureGS, a reconstruction framework for articulated objects that integrates structure-aware guidance into 3D Gaussian Splatting. Our approach leverages oriented bounding boxes of object parts to enforce two key structural properties: spatial coherence, which constrains each part's geometry to remain compact and spatially coherent within its designated region, and structural connectivity, which enforces physically plausible contact relationships between adjacent parts. These properties are realized through structure-aware losses that inject explicit structural constraints into the optimization process. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in articulated object reconstruction, producing high-quality results with well-defined part geometries.

Abstract

Articulated Object Reconstruction

Explore similar work

StructureGS: Structure-aware Gaussian Splatting for Articulated Object Reconstruction

GaussianArt: Unified Modeling of Geometry and Motion for Articulated Objects

MonoArt: Progressive Structural Reasoning for Monocular Articulated 3D Reconstruction