Humans commonly identify 3D object affordance through observed interactions in images or videos, and once formed, such knowledge can be generically generalized to novel objects. Inspired by this principle, we advocate for a novel framework that leverages emerging multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for interaction intention-driven 3D affordance grounding, namely HAMMER. Instead of generating explicit object attribute descriptions or relying on off-the-shelf 2D segmenters, we alternatively aggregate the interaction intention depicted in the image into a contact-aware embedding and guide the model to infer textual affordance labels, ensuring it thoroughly excavates object semantics and contextual cues. We further devise a hierarchical cross-modal integration mechanism to fully exploit the complementary information from the MLLM for 3D representation refinement and introduce a multi-granular geometry lifting module that infuses spatial characteristics into the extracted intention embedding, thus facilitating accurate 3D affordance localization. Extensive experiments on public datasets and our newly constructed corrupted benchmark demonstrate the superiority and robustness of HAMMER compared to existing approaches. All code and weights are publicly available.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of current architectures and HAMMER. (a) GREAT [ 33 ] generates texts to assist the fusion process. (b) InteractVLM [ 7 ] first produces 2D masks and back-projects them into 3D space. (c) HAMMER enhances point cloud features with cross-modal information from MLLMs and lifts the extracted intention embedding to 3D for accurate affordance localization.
Figure 2: Overview of our HAMMER. Given a 3D point cloud P and its corresponding interaction image I , our framework first processes I through a pre-trained MLLM Fθ to extract an affordance-guided intention embedding fc (Sec. 3.2 ). This embedding is then used to enhance point cloud features via a hierarchical cross-modal integration mechanism (Sec. 3.3 ). To imbue fc with 3D spatial awareness, we apply a multi-granular geometry lifting module that incorporates multi-scale geometric cues (Sec. 3.4 ). Finally, the refined point features f~p and the 3D-aware intention embedding fc3D are decoded to produce the final affordance map p (Sec. 3.5 ).
Methods
Venue
Seen
Unseen
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
Intention-Driven 3D Affordance Grounding
PMF [ 52 ]
ICCV 21
10.13
75.05
0.425
0.141
4.67
60.25
0.330
0.211
ILN [ 4 ]
SIGGRAPH 22
11.25
75.84
0.427
0.137
4.71
59.69
0.325
0.207
FRCNN [ 42 ]
Remote Sensing 23
11.97
76.05
0.429
0.136
4.71
61.92
0.332
0.195
PFusion [ 41 ]
CVPR 18
12.31
77.50
0.432
0.135
5.33
61.87
0.330
0.193
Table 1: Performance comparison on PIAD [ 44 ] . Best results are highlight in bold . aIOU and AUC are reported in percentage (%).
Methods
Year
Seen
Unseen Object
Unseen Affordance
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
OpenAD [ 26 ]
2023
31.88
89.54
0.526
0.104
16.62
73.49
0.339
0.159
8.00
61.22
0.229
0.167
FRCNN [ 42 ]
2023
33.55
87.05
0.600
0.082
18.08
72.20
0.362
0.152
7.96
59.08
0.210
0.156
XMFNet [ 1 ]
2022
33.91
87.39
0.604
0.078
17.40
74.61
0.361
0.126
8.11
60.99
0.225
0.152
IAGNet [ 44 ]
2024
34.29
89.03
0.623
0.076
16.78
73.03
0.351
0.123
8.99
62.29
0.251
0.141
LASO [ 17 ]
2024
34.88
90.34
0.627
0.077
16.05
73.32
0.354
0.123
8.37
64.07
0.228
0.140
Table 2: Performance comparison on PIADv2 [ 33 ] . Best results are highlight in bold . aIOU and AUC are reported in percentage (%).
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on PIAD [ 44 ] . Our HAMMER generates more precise and complete affordance predictions compared to GREAT [ 33 ] , highlighting its enhanced capability in understanding interaction intentions and reasoning about 3D affordances.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on corrupted point clouds. The proposed HAMMER realizes stronger robustness in accurately localizing affordance regions under severe noise corruption, while GREAT [ 33 ] struggles to maintain reliable predictions.
Type
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
GREAT
Ours
GREAT
Ours
GREAT
Ours
GREAT
Ours
Scale
13.41
19.18
77.77
85.73
0.490
0.596
0.116
0.093
Jitter
11.67
17.36
75.65
84.57
0.461
0.568
0.115
0.095
Rotate
12.61
18.33
76.99
85.31
0.483
0.591
0.116
0.095
Drop-L
8.67
17.98
72.38
84.59
0.420
0.568
0.122
0.098
Drop-G
13.62
20.38
78.26
86.76
0.494
0.611
0.112
0.089
Table 3: Robustness evaluation. Drop , L and G indicate dropout, local and global corruptions, respectively.
Type
w/ cls
w/ afford
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
Seen
✓
✓
22.20
88.43
0.605
0.083
✗
✓
21.95
87.73
0.594
0.085
✗
✗
19.72
84.36
0.564
0.094
Unseen
✓
✓
13.71
80.92
0.449
0.109
✗
✓
12.35
79.28
0.425
0.113
✗
✗
8.78
66.33
0.345
0.132
Table 4: Ablation study on affordance-guided intention embedding. w/ cls and w/ afford denote including object category in the prompt and predicting affordance label in the output, respectively.
Type
Ablation
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
Seen
HAMMER
22.20
88.43
0.605
0.083
w/o Hier. Integ.
21.15
87.64
0.597
0.085
w/o Geo. Lifting
20.46
87.25
0.588
0.087
w/o Both
19.55
86.67
0.587
0.088
w/o Ltxt
20.69
87.66
0.603
0.086
Unseen
HAMMER
13.71
80.92
0.449
0.109
Table 5: Ablation study of core components. Hier. Integ. and Geo. Lifting mean the hierarchical cross-modal integration and multi-granular geometry lifting, respectively.
Figure 5: Impact of MLLM backbones ( left ) and visualization of point-wise features via PCA ( right ).
Type
Stage I
Stage II
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
Seen
✓
✓
22.20
88.43
0.605
0.083
✗
✓
21.55
87.79
0.598
0.084
✓
✗
21.70
88.00
0.603
0.084
✗
✗
21.15
87.64
0.597
0.085
Unseen
✓
✓
13.71
80.92
0.449
0.109
✗
✓
11.85
79.55
0.433
0.110
Table S.1 : Ablation study on the hierarchical cross-modal integration mechanism. This analysis evaluates the contribution of each integration stage to the overall performance of HAMMER.
Type
Ablation
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
Seen
HAMMER
22.20
88.43
0.605
0.083
Single Lift
21.40
88.17
0.603
0.085
Concat. Lift
21.05
87.95
0.597
0.084
Unseen
HAMMER
13.71
80.92
0.449
0.109
Single Lift
12.26
80.64
0.441
0.111
Concat. Lift
11.45
78.12
0.421
0.110
Table S.2 : Alternative lifting strategies. We compare the performance of our proposed lifting strategy with two alternatives: (1) single-stage lifting, and (2) simple concatenation.
Backbones
PIAD Seen
PIAD Unseen
PIADv2 Seen
PIADv2 Unseen Object
PIADv2 Unseen Affordance
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
PointNet++
22.20
88.43
0.605
0.083
13.71
80.92
0.449
0.109
40.06
94.19
0.698
0.063
24.28
84.78
0.449
0.112
13.28
72.21
0.302
0.128
Uni3D
24.67
89.77
0.635
0.078
12.28
77.75
0.412
0.102
40.66
93.94
0.690
0.065
24.02
81.07
0.426
0.131
14.49
71.00
0.272
0.128
Table S.3 : Performance analysis with different point cloud backbones. We evaluate the capability of HAMMER using PointNet++ [ 27 ] and Uni3D [ 51 ] as 3D feature extractors.
Type
Ablation
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
Seen
w/ Fine-tuning
22.20
88.43
0.605
0.083
w/o Fine-tuning
19.67
85.53
0.568
0.092
Unseen
w/ Fine-tuning
13.71
80.92
0.449
0.109
w/o Fine-tuning
7.55
64.89
0.311
0.142
Table S.4 : Comparison of MLLM fine-tuning strategies. We evaluate the performance when applying LoRA fine-tuning to the MLLM versus keeping its weights entirely frozen during training.
Methods
Size
Seen
Unseen
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
InteractVLM
13B
21.20
86.47
0.627
0.081
8.50
75.45
0.414
0.099
HAMMER
3B
22.20
88.43
0.605
0.083
13.71
80.92
0.449
0.109
Table S.5 : Comparison to InteractVLM [ 7 ] on PIAD. We evaluate the performance of our HAMMER against InteractVLM across both Seen and Unseen splits of the PIAD dataset.
Method
Metrics
grasp
cont.
lift
open
lay
sit
supp.
wrap.
pour
move
disp.
push
listen
wear
press
cut
stab
XMFNet
aIOU ↑
12.82
10.41
13.24
9.17
17.00
26.65
7.89
5.24
7.81
6.46
17.25
2.68
5.31
5.34
7.87
6.35
5.88
AUC ↑
62.98
79.97
78.93
79.74
88.93
94.91
84.56
56.47
82.15
54.97
82.91
63.74
74.93
70.57
88.18
79.17
69.97
SIM ↑
0.415
0.401
0.334
0.184
0.427
0.619
0.659
0.569
0.399
0.391
0.508
0.535
0.433
0.565
0.237
0.427
0.394
MAE ↓
0.121
0.131
0.138
0.131
0.129
0.093
0.119
0.128
0.159
0.192
0.127
0.083
0.164
0.129
0.113
0.135
0.152
IAGNet
aIOU ↑
16.83
17.12
31.95
28.39
31.80
37.72
12.04
6.02
20.33
5.57
30.57
1.79
15.59
6.55
14.42
12.95
9.48
AUC ↑
77.53
83.84
95.05
90.89
93.54
95.94
84.58
66.71
86.02
63.09
89.29
84.71
87.13
71.16
89.46
86.69
76.4
Table S.6 : Evaluation Metrics in PIAD Seen. Results of each affordance type in the Seen. cont. , supp. , wrap. , and disp. denote contain , support , wrapgrasp , and display , respectively.
Method
Metrics
cont.
lay
lift
wrap.
open
disp.
stab
grasp
press
cut
XMFNet
aIOU ↑
6.29
15.10
7.29
1.42
4.32
6.20
6.12
3.97
5.71
13.95
AUC ↑
67.98
84.02
68.45
45.74
78.53
62.20
76.92
59.19
69.32
85.87
SIM ↑
0.412
0.503
0.403
0.451
0.156
0.075
0.351
0.278
0.270
0.435
MAE ↓
0.137
0.135
0.144
0.156
0.094
0.240
0.087
0.117
0.124
0.078
IAGNet
aIOU ↑
7.24
18.12
8.47
1.89
12.28
16.28
10.39
4.79
4.22
21.47
AUC ↑
67.96
84.82
71.10
56.39
90.91
85.51
98.83
78.60
68.07
95.95
Table S.7 : Evaluation Metrics in PIAD Unseen. Results of each affordance type in the Unseen. cont. , wrap. , and disp. denote contain , wrapgrasp , and display , respectively.
Method
Metrics
Carry
Listen
Lay
Pour
Cut
Pull
XMFNet
aIOU ↑
5.89
3.89
10.93
6.85
5.77
24.52
AUC ↑
54.08
56.07
73.16
63.97
44.85
91.40
SIM ↑
0.195
0.216
0.399
0.187
0.115
0.349
MAE ↓
0.158
0.179
0.130
0.130
0.213
0.050
IAGNet
aIOU ↑
8.10
3.71
10.47
4.92
4.40
38.27
AUC ↑
63.98
54.13
69.94
59.89
49.97
93.72
Table S.8 : Evaluation Metrics in PIADv2 Unseen Affordance. Results of each affordance type in the Unseen Affordance split.
#
Object Category
Affordance Type
Num
1
TrashCan
contain, open, pour
69
2
Door
open, push
47
3
Display
display
52
4
Earphone
grasp, listen
70
5
Vase
contain, wrapgrasp
90
6
Hat
grasp, wear
66
Table S.9 : Statistics of the constructed corrupted benchmark.
Method
Metrics
Base.
Bucket
Clock
Fork
Kettle
Laptop
Mop
Motor.
Refri.
Scis.
Skat.
XMFNet
aIOU ↑
37.62
10.26
19.13
27.23
5.50
8.66
20.53
5.54
9.41
10.24
18.38
AUC ↑
76.75
59.73
77.86
81.93
61.74
73.52
79.09
69.02
84.22
56.31
81.80
SIM ↑
0.528
0.169
0.444
0.497
0.107
0.314
0.400
0.162
0.336
0.261
0.482
MAE ↓
0.171
0.165
0.137
0.120
0.123
0.128
0.136
0.033
0.094
0.165
0.151
IAGNet
aIOU ↑
42.84
12.56
13.48
22.60
2.65
6.95
37.66
9.30
14.43
7.37
4.61
AUC ↑
85.32
65.52
69.21
73.63
54.38
78.17
92.09
79.74
80.63
56.62
58.84
Table S.10 : Evaluation Metrics in PIADv2 Unseen Object. Results of each object category in the Unseen Object split. Base. , Motor. , Refri. , Scus. and Skat. denote Baseballbat, Motorcycle, Refrigerator, Scissors, and Skateboard, respectively.
Corrupt Type
Level
GREAT
HAMMER
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
aIOU ↑
AUC ↑
SIM ↑
MAE ↓
Scale
0
13.85
78.63
0.497
0.115
19.76
86.04
0.604
0.091
1
13.59
77.89
0.495
0.116
19.26
85.75
0.598
0.093
2
13.50
77.82
0.491
0.116
19.15
85.83
0.594
0.094
3
13.11
77.21
0.486
0.117
18.94
85.52
0.591
0.095
4
13.01
77.30
0.483
0.117
18.81
85.51
0.591
0.094
Table S.11 : Detailed robustness performance under different levels of corruptions. We evaluate the robustness of our HAMMER and GREAT [ 33 ] on 7 corruption types. Each corruption type is evaluated under 5 severity levels (0-4). The results demonstrate that HAMMER consistently outperforms GREAT across all corruption types and severity levels, highlighting its superior robustness in handling corrupted 3D objects.
Figure S.1 : Failure cases of our HAMMER model on PIAD.
Figure S.2 : Visualization on PIADv2 Seen. We compare our HAMMER with GREAT [ 33 ] on several examples from the Seen subset of PIADv2.
Figure S.3 : Visualization on PIADv2 Unseen Object and Unseen Affordance subsets. We compare our HAMMER with GREAT [ 33 ] on several examples from the Unseen Object and Unseen Affordance subsets of PIADv2.
Figure S.4 : Visualization of point features with and without hierarchical cross-modal integration. We visualize the PCA-reduced point features for several examples to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed hierarchical cross-modal integration mechanism.
Figure S.5 : Visualization of corrupted point clouds. We illustrate two additional examples of corrupted point clouds from our constructed benchmark.
Grounding natural language questions to functionally relevant regions in 3D objects -- termed language-driven 3D affordance grounding -- is essential for embodied intelligence and human-AI interaction. Existing methods, while progressing from label-based to language-driven approaches, still face challenges in open-vocabulary generalization, fine-grained geometric alignment, and part-level semantic consistency. To address these issues, we propose a novel two-stage cross-modal framework that enhances both semantic and geometric representations for open-vocabulary 3D affordance grounding. In the first stage, large language models generate part-aware instructions to recover missing semantics, enabling the model to link semantically similar affordances. In the second stage, we introduce two key components: Affordance Prototype Aggregation (APA), which captures cross-object geometric consistency for each affordance, and Intra-Object Relational Modeling (IORM), which refines geometric differentiation within objects to support precise semantic alignment. We validate the effectiveness of our method through extensive experiments on a newly introduced benchmark, as well as two existing benchmarks, demonstrating superior performance in comparison with existing methods.
Task-driven 3D affordance grounding aims to localize the functional region in a cluttered 3D scene that enables an action specified by a natural-language instruction. Existing methods either predict 3D masks directly or construct them by selecting and fusing intermediate 2D/3D regions. However, they remain vulnerable to two intertwined failure modes: the predicted or selected regions may miss the target interaction area or have unsuitable granularity, while language grounding may confuse visually similar alternatives under relational instructions. To this end, we introduce ThinkAfford, which decouples high-recall affordance proposal generation from instruction-grounded reasoning. Specifically, the Affordance Proposal Generation module first uses learnable affordance prompts and multi-level visual features to predict interaction-conditioned heatmaps, extracting a variable number of fine-grained proposals without parsed object or part names as segmentation prompts. Visual-Prompted Affordance Reasoning then reasons over labeled proposal overlays using the full instruction, returning identifiers in a structured "think-then-answer" response. Moreover, Group Relative Policy Optimization uses proposal-level rewards from lifted 3D overlap to align VPAR selection with final 3D grounding. On the SceneFun3D validation split, ThinkAfford achieves 10.69% AP50 and 25.46% AP25 under the official evaluator, outperforming comparable 3D open-vocabulary and vision-language-model-based 2D-to-3D baselines. Module-level diagnostics further show that APG attains 77.5% recall at 25% intersection-over-union, while GRPO-trained VPAR achieves 72.1% selection accuracy on APG-covered queries, compared with 63.4% under supervised fine-tuning.
Xinrui Lin, Sha Zhang, Shumin Wang +3
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
3D affordance grounding aims to understand how diverse objects can be manipulated, making it a cornerstone of embodied interaction. However, prior works struggle to generalize to out-of-distribution, open-world scenarios, leaving a critical gap between limited dataset performance and real-world application needs. Inspired by the saying: ``What I can not create, I do not understand'', we find generative models can generate semantically valid HOI images, which indicates inherent encoding of affordance concepts. Building on this insight, we propose DAG, the first innovative diffusion-based 3D affordance grounding framework that extracts general affordance knowledge from text-to-image diffusion models for 3D affordance prediction. Specifically, we extract the affordance priors from a diffusion model to encode HOI priors, and design an affordance block with a multi-source affordance decoder for dense 3D affordance prediction. Extensive experiments show that DAG consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods and exhibits strong open-world generalization, even in the challenging one-shot setting. The code of our method is released on \textcolor{blue}{*https://github.com/hq-King/DAG*}.
Hanqing Wang, Zhenhao Zhang, Kaiyang Ji +12
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, China · ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China · Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China +3