SCOPE: Scene-Contextualized Incremental Few-Shot 3D Segmentation
Organizations: University of Surrey, UK · University of Wollongong, Australia · University of Copenhagen, Denmark · University of Exeter, UK ·
Abstract
Incremental Few-Shot (IFS) segmentation aims to learn new categories over time from only a few annotations. Although widely studied in 2D, it remains underexplored for 3D point clouds. Existing methods suffer from catastrophic forgetting or fail to learn discriminative prototypes under sparse supervision, and often overlook a key cue: novel categories frequently appear as unlabelled background in base-training scenes. We introduce SCOPE (Scene-COntextualised Prototype Enrichment), a plug-and-play background-guided prototype enrichment framework that integrates with any prototype-based 3D segmentation method. After base training, a class-agnostic segmentation model extracts high-confidence pseudo-instances from background regions to build a prototype pool. When novel classes arrive with few labelled samples, relevant background prototypes are retrieved and fused with few-shot prototypes to form enriched representations without retraining the backbone or adding parameters. Experiments on ScanNet and S3DIS show that SCOPE achieves SOTA performance, improving novel-class IoU by up to 6.98% and 3.61%, and mean IoU by 2.25% and 1.70%, respectively, while maintaining low forgetting. Code is available https://github.com/Surrey-UP-Lab/SCOPE.
Figures & tables
| PCS Paradigms | Future Knowledge | Few-Shot | Base + Novel | Multi-Step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fully Supervised | – | ✗ | – | – |
| Few-Shot | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Generalized Few-Shot | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
| Class-Incremental | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Incremental Few-Shot | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Methods | Venue | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mIoU | mIoU-B | mIoU-N | HM | mIOU-I | FPP | mIoU | mIoU-B | mIoU-N | HM | mIOU-I | FPP | ||
| JT (Oracle) | – | 45.34 | 48.68 | 36.97 | 42.03 | – | – | 45.34 | 48.68 | 36.97 | 42.03 | – | – |
| Finetuning | – | 0.38 | 0.48 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 12.28 | 34.25 | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.26 | 0.34 | 10.93 | 40.67 |
| LwF [ 24 ] | TPAMI’17 | 4.12 | 5.77 | 0.27 | 0.51 | 14.75 | 35.39 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0.39 | 12.06 | 40.84 |
| CLIMB-3D [ 39 ] | BMVC’25 | 4.23 | 5.92 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 15.98 | 35.25 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 10.36 | 41.16 |
| EWC [ 21 ] | PNAS’17 | 3.87 | 5.41 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 17.66 | 35.76 | 2.33 | 4.42 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 16.57 | 35.22 |
| Methods | Venue | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mIoU | mIoU-B | mIoU-N | HM | mIOU-I | FPP | mIoU | mIoU-B | mIoU-N | HM | mIOU-I | FPP | ||
| JT (Oracle) | – | 73.62 | 81.57 | 64.34 | 71.94 | – | – | 73.62 | 81.57 | 64.34 | 71.94 | – | – |
| Finetuning | – | 2.25 | 3.26 | 1.07 | 1.61 | 24.57 | 65.55 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 1.06 | 0.11 | 22.88 | 75.58 |
| LwF [ 24 ] | TPAMI’17 | 12.66 | 20.29 | 3.76 | 6.35 | 37.55 | 55.36 | 7.89 | 12.61 | 2.39 | 4.02 | 28.44 | 63.04 |
| CLIMB-3D [ 39 ] | BMVC’25 | 17.71 | 31.37 | 1.76 | 3.32 | 41.72 | 44.27 | 7.24 | 12.77 | 0.79 | 1.49 | 30.98 | 68.40 |
| EWC [ 21 ] | PNAS’17 | 19.48 | 35.56 | 0.73 | 1.44 | 44.78 | 40.09 | 13.74 | 20.66 | 1.64 | 3.00 | 37.85 | 54.98 |
| Variant | mIoU | mIoU-N | HM | mIoU-I | FPP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support Set Only (GW [ 46 ] ) | 34.27 | 16.88 | 23.94 | 37.67 | 1.49 |
| + CPR (mean) | 35.68 | 22.12 | 28.91 | 38.02 | 1.50 |
| + APE (full) | 36.52 | 23.86 | 30.38 | 38.91 | 1.27 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Method | Paradigm | Few-shot | Incremental | Prototype-based | Key Idea |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FT (Naïve Finetuning) | – | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | Direct fine-tuning on new tasks without forgetting control |
| LwF [ 24 ] | CI | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | Knowledge distillation to preserve previous predictions |
| EWC [ 21 ] | CI | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | Fisher-information regularisation to protect important weights |
| GUA [ 49 ] | CI | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | Geometry and uncertainty-aware regularisation for PCS |
| CLIMB-3D [ 39 ] | CI | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | Handles long-tail distributions in incremental 3D segmentation |
| AttMPTI [ 53 ] | FS | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | Multi-prototype inference with label propagation |
| Datasets | Base Classes ( ) | Novel Classes ( ) |
|---|---|---|
| S3DIS | Wall, Ceiling, Floor, Clutter, Bookcase, Door, Chair | Beam, Column, Window, Table, Sofa, Board |
| ScanNet | Refrigerator, Desk, Curtain, Sofa, Bookshelf, Bed, Table, Otherfurniture, Window, Cabinet, Door, Chair, Unannotated, Floor, Wall | Sink, Toilet, Bathtub, Shower Curtain, Picture, Counter |
| Method | mIoU | mIoU-B | mIoU-N | HM | mIOU-I | FPP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIFS | 25.39 | 34.81 | 3.43 | 6.24 | 33.11 | 8.74 |
| + SC | 27.36 | 34.94 | 4.93 | 8.64 | 34.03 | 8.61 |
| CAPL | 31.73 | 39.01 | 14.75 | 21.36 | 34.55 | -0.65 |
| + SC | 32.97 | 39.08 | 18.70 | 25.25 | 35.19 | -0.72 |
| GW | 34.27 | 41.72 | 16.88 | 23.94 | 37.67 | 1.49 |
| Ours | 36.52 | 41.94 | 23.86 | 30.38 | 38.91 | 1.27 |
| Method | Task | Base Mean | Novel Mean | Novel Classes ( ) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sink | Toilet | Bathtub | Shower Curtain | Picture | Counter | ||||
| GW [ 46 ] | 1 | 40.92 | 13.45 | 8.96 | 17.94 | – | – | – | – |
| 2 | 41.01 | 17.16 | 9.38 | 21.63 | 16.64 | 21.00 | – | – | |
| 3 | 41.72 | 16.88 | 9.78 | 22.54 | 18.16 | 22.77 | 13.78 | 14.23 | |
| SCOPE (Ours) | 1 | 41.02 | 19.29 | 12.70 | 25.88 | – | – | – | – |
| 2 | 41.15 | 25.10 | 12.90 | 32.33 | 26.05 | 29.13 | – | – | |
Few-Shot Semantic Segmentation
Few-shot semantic segmentation labels pixels in new image classes using only a small set of annotated examples.
See all 32 papers