Towards Foundation Models for 3D Scene Understanding: Instance-Aware Self-Supervised Learning for Point Clouds
Authors: Bin Yang, Mohamed Abdelsamad, Miao Zhang, Alexandru Paul Condurache
Organizations: Bosch Center for AI, Stuttgart, Germany · Institute for Neuro- and Bioinformatics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany · Robert Learning Lab, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Recent advances in self-supervised learning (SSL) for point clouds have substantially improved 3D scene understanding without human annotations. Existing approaches emphasize semantic awareness by enforcing feature consistency across augmented views or by masked scene modeling. However, the resulting representations transfer poorly to instance localization, and often require full finetuning for strong performance. Instance awareness is a fundamental component of 3D perception, thus bridging this gap is crucial for progressing toward true 3D foundation models that support all downstream tasks on 3D data. In this work, we introduce PointINS, an instance-oriented self-supervised framework that enriches point cloud representations through geometry-aware learning. PointINS employs an orthogonal offset branch to jointly learn high-level semantic understanding and geometric reasoning, yielding instance awareness. We identify two consistent properties essential for robust instance localization and formulate them as complementary regularization strategies, Offset Distribution Regularization (ODR), which aligns predicted offsets with empirically observed geometric priors, and Spatial Clustering Regularization (SCR), which enforces local coherence by regularizing offsets with pseudo-instance masks. Through extensive experiments across five datasets, PointINS achieves on average +3.5% mAP improvement for indoor instance segmentation and +4.1% PQ gain for outdoor panoptic segmentation, paving the way for scalable 3D foundation models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: We achieve superior results over state-of-the-art self-supervised approaches (DOS [ 2 ] and Sonata [ 36 ] ) on both indoor instance (left) and outdoor panoptic segmentation (right).
Figure 2: Example of an indoor/outdoor scene and K-means clustering over their point features extracted from a self-supervised pre-trained model [ 36 ] .
Figure 3: Overview of PointINS : A point cloud is augmented to two independent views and they are randomly masked. The teacher processes the full input and the student receives only visible points. Both networks share the same architecture. In the semantic branch, features are computed similarity with prototypes Q . A KL-divergence loss Lsem is then applied for distillation. In the offset branch, an offset head maps features into 3D offset vectors. Teacher offsets are first regularized by ODR to align with empirically observed geometric priors. Next, segments obtained from K-means-clustering are used to extract pseudo-instance masks. Those masks help to enhance instance awareness by regularizing local coherence of points. Finally, an offset loss Loff is computed as the second distillation.
Figure 4: Offset distributions of ScanNet [ 12 ] and nuScenes [ 14 ]
Figure 5: We monitor the linear probing (LP) performance of a model pre-trained with a recent SSL method [ 36 ] . Remarkably, the model reaches 85% of its final LP performance within just 10% of the total training.
Method
ScanNet val
ScanNet200 val
S3DIS Area5
SemSeg.
InsSeg.
SemSeg.
InsSeg.
SemSeg.
InsSeg.
mIoU
mAP
AP 50
AP 25
mIoU
mAP
AP 50
AP 25
mIoU
mAP
AP 50
AP 25
PTv3 (sup.)
77.6
40.9
61.7
77.5
35.3
24.0
34.1
40.8
73.4
40.2
52.1
61.2
SegContrast [ 28 ] (lin.)
38.4
6.4
13.7
30.6
12.4
1.8
4.7
10.2
-
-
-
-
PSA [ 27 ] (lin.)
42.9
9.7
20.4
41.9
13.9
2.4
5.3
11.4
-
-
-
-
NOMAE [ 1 ] (lin.)
47.5
9.5
20.0
42.0
14.7
2.9
6.7
12.7
-
-
-
-
Table 1: Comparison of self-supervised methods on various indoor scene datasets: ScanNet [ 12 ] , ScanNet200 [ 30 ] and S3DIS [ 21 ] . For fair comparison, all models deploy the same backbone of Point Transformer v3 (PTv3) [ 35 ] and no additional data is used during pre-training. The best and second best results in each setting are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively.
Method
nuScenes val
SemanticKITTI val
SemSeg.
PanSeg.
SemSeg.
PanSeg.
mIoU
PQ
SQ
RQ
mIoU
PQ
SQ
RQ
PTv3 (sup.)
80.3
69.9
86.3
80.5
69.1
58.2
78.7
67.7
SegContrast [ 28 ] (lin.)
37.8
25.4
69.8
33.4
-
-
-
-
PSA [ 27 ] (lin.)
44.5
30.1
73.9
38.6
-
-
-
-
NOMAE [ 1 ] (lin.)
64.7
45.5
77.0
56.4
29.8
17.1
54.7
24.9
Table 2: Comparison of self-supervised methods on the outdoor scene datasets: nuScenes [ 14 ] and SemanticKITTI [ 4 ] .
Component
InsSeg.
PanSeg.
+ Loff
ODR
SCR
mAP
AP 50
AP 25
PQ
SQ
RQ
28.7
49.8
68.7
57.4
82.8
68.5
✓
28.9
49.6
69.1
58.5
82.3
69.7
✓
✓
30.2
52.1
70.8
60.4
83.6
71.5
✓
✓
30.5
51.9
71.0
60.1
83.1
71.2
✓
✓
✓
32.1
55.2
73.6
62.2
84.5
72.8
Table 3: Ablation study on PointINS components. Models are evaluated on ScanNet [ 12 ] for instance segmentation and nuScenes [ 14 ] for panoptic segmentation via linear probing.
Figure 6: Visualization of predicted centroids ci=xi+Oi ( no explicit regularization ) from models pre-trained under four configurations. (a) Without regularization, the centroids are scattered irregularly across the scenes. (b) With ODR only, the centroids are aligned more closely with the scene structure but they are not grouped (lack of local coherence). (c) With SCR only, the centroids are partially grouped but spatially scattered. (d) With ODR and SCR, the centroids become tightly concentrated around instances.
Method
ScanNet val
S3DIS Area5
nuScenes val
SemanticKITTI val
SemSeg.
InsSeg.
SemSeg.
InsSeg.
SemSeg.
PanSeg.
SemSeg.
PanSeg.
mIoU
mAP
AP 50
AP 25
mIoU
mAP
AP 50
AP 25
mIoU
PQ
SQ
RQ
mIoU
PQ
SQ
RQ
PTv3 (sup.)
77.6
40.9
61.7
77.5
73.4
40.2
52.1
61.2
80.3
69.9
86.3
80.5
69.1
58.2
78.7
67.7
Sonata ⋆ [ 36 ] (lin.)
72.5
30.7
53.9
72.6
72.3
26.1
36.6
45.8
66.1
54.9
81.0
66.0
62.0
50.8
76.5
61.1
DOS ⋆ [ 2 ] (lin.)
73.9
32.5
54.6
70.9
71.7
30.1
40.6
50.4
74.8
60.9
82.6
71.5
68.3
52.6
77.1
63.2
PointINS ⋆ (lin.)
73.5
34.6
57.6
76.3
72.6
37.0
49.8
58.6
74.6
64.7
84.9
74.2
68.0
55.0
78.0
65.2
Table 4: Comparison of self-supervised methods with additional data for pre-training.
Method
SemSeg.
InsSeg.
mIoU
mAP
AP 50
AP 25
PSA [ 27 ] + PointINS
47.5 (+4.6)
14.2 (+4.5)
30.8 (+10.4)
50.0 (+8.1)
Sonata [ 36 ] + PointINS
68.6 (+1.2)
28.4 (+3.4)
50.3 (+4.2)
67.1 (+2.5)
Table 6: Evaluation of other SSL frameworks with integration of PointINS . Models are evaluated on ScanNet val set under linear probing setting. ( + Δ ) denotes the performance gain.
Method
0.1% labels
1% labels
PQ
SQ
RQ
PQ
SQ
RQ
PTv3 (sup.)
24.3
69.0
30.7
34.2
71.2
40.1
NOMAE [ 1 ] (fin.)
30.4
74.9
40.9
37.4
78.5
45.2
Sonata [ 36 ] (fin.)
27.1
71.4
34.0
34.7
72.5
42.3
DOS (fin.)
33.6
74.3
41.2
41.2
75.7
49.2
PointINS (fin.)
34.9
75.2
42.1
42.5
82.0
49.6
Table 7: Label efficient training on nuScenes panoptic segmentation [ 14 ] .
Design
SemSeg.
InsSeg.
mIoU
mAP
AP 50
AP 25
PointINS ⋄
72.0 (-0.4)
30.0 (-2.1)
50.7 (-4.5)
69.5 (-4.1)
PointINS †
71.9 (-0.5)
30.9 (-1.2)
53.9 (-1.3)
72.8 (-0.8)
PointINS
72.4
32.1
55.2
73.6
Table 8: Comparison of different regularization layouts. All models are evaluated on ScanNet via linear probing. ⋄ : order of ODR and SCR is reversed. † : ODR is added on the student side as a regularization loss via KL divergence.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Config
Outdoor
Indoor
optimizer
AdamW
AdamW
scheduler
Cosine
Cosine
learning rate
2e-3
4e-3
weight decay
4e-2
4e-2
batch size
16
16
Datasets
nuScenes / Sem.Kitti
Scannet / Scannet200 / S3DIS
Appendix
Table 9: Pretraining settings for indoor and outdoor point clouds.
Figure 7: Results of different parameter settings on ScanNet.
Warmup Ratio
mAP
AP 50
AP 25
0.0
30.8
53.7
72.8
0.1
32.1
55.2
73.6
0.2
31.7
54.6
73.1
0.4
31.4
53.5
72.4
0.6
30.1
52.6
71.6
0.8
28.8
49.9
68.1
Appendix
Table 10: Results of different warmup ratio of Loff on ScanNet
Method
OD Prob.
OD 1%
mAP
NDS
mAP
NDS
Sonata [ 36 ]
44.6
55.0
41.3
52.8
DOS [ 2 ]
55.4
61.5
49.0
58.0
PointINS
56.7
62.5
50.8
60.2
Appendix
Table 11: OD Prob.: Object detection under decoder probing protocol. OD 1%: Object detection finetuning on 1% annotations.
Method
SK Nu
Wa Nu
PQ
SQ
RQ
PQ
SQ
RQ
Sonata [ 36 ]
31.0
72.5
40.5
36.9
75.4
47.1
DOS [ 2 ]
46.4
78.9
57.5
51.4
80.3
62.6
PointINS
56.7
80.1
59.4
54.8
81.9
66.1
Appendix
Table 12: Results on panoptic segmentation under cross-dataset probing setting. SK: SemanticKITTI [ 4 ] , Nu: nuScenes [ 5 ] , Wa: Waymo Open Dataset [ 25 ]
Table 13: Results of unsupervised instance segmentation on ScanNet.
Figure 8: Qualitative results of unsupervised instance segmentation. Left: ground-truth instance labels. Right: predictions from PointINS obtained directly from offset clustering without any downstream supervision.
Unsupervised 3D instance segmentation of outdoor LiDAR scans has traditionally relied on handcrafted geometric priors such as density-based clustering, motion cues, or projected 2D detections. In this work, we investigate whether a frozen, self-supervised point transformer already contains the structural information required to isolate object instances without any handcrafted geometric prior. Using this transformer purely as a feature extractor, we probe its internal representations across the SemanticKITTI, nuScenes, and Waymo Perception datasets. Our analysis yields four core insights: (1) the instance signal concentrates in the attention queries and keys rather than in the values or final output features; (2) output features semantically collapse, merging adjacent same-class objects that the queries and keys keep distinct; (3) this instance signal is bimodal in depth, strongest at the shallowest and deepest encoder stages; and (4) this signal is driven predominantly by the rotary position encoding (RoPE), whose removal collapses its advantage. We put these findings into our method TokenGraph3D, a training-free segmenter that groups points via connected components on a key-similarity graph, using neither density-based clustering nor proximity priors. Under identical prior-free conditions, we substantially outperform output-feature baselines, making the emergent 3D instance structure visible.
Ted Lentsch, Santiago Montiel-Marín, Holger Caesar +1
Department of Cognitive Robotics, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands · Department of Electronics, University of Alcalá, Spain
We address the challenging task of 3D object segmentation in complex scene point clouds without relying on any scene-level human annotations during training. Existing methods are typically constrained to identifying simple objects, primarily due to insufficient object priors in the learning process. In this paper, we present FoundObj, a novel framework featuring a superpoint-based object discovery agent that incrementally merges suitable neighboring superpoints, guided by our innovative semantic and geometric reward modules. These modules synergistically leverage semantic and geometric priors from self-supervised 2D/3D foundation models, providing complementary feedback to the object discovery agent and enabling robust identification of multi-class objects through reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments on diverse benchmarks demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms existing baselines. Notably, our method exhibits strong generalization in zero-shot and long-tail scenarios, underscoring its potential for scalable, label-free 3D object segmentation.
Zihui Zhang, Zhixuan Sun, Yafei Yang +3
Shenzhen Research Institute, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · vLAR Group, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
With the rapid progress of multimodal foundation models and predictive pre-training, an important open question is how to equip 3D point clouds with a pre-training paradigm that is better aligned with next-token and next-embedding learning. Existing point-cloud self-supervised methods are largely built on masked reconstruction or explicit geometric generation, and thus remain tied to input recovery rather than predictive dependency modeling. In this paper, we introduce PointNTP, which reformulates point cloud pre-training as a fully causal, decoder-free latent Next-Token Prediction problem. Specifically, each point cloud is first partitioned into local patches and serialized into a structured 3D token sequence according to patch-center geometry. The resulting sequence is then modeled by a causal Transformer under prefix-only conditioning, and trained with a shift-based prediction objective stabilized by stop-gradient targets. This design enables the model to learn structural dependencies directly in latent space, without reconstruction decoders or explicit geometric recovery. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed PointNTP is highly competitive across multiple downstream tasks: it achieves 93.8%(+0.5%), 92.6%(+0.3%), and 89.3%(+1.1%) on OBJ_BG, OBJ_ONLY, and PB_T50_RS of ScanObjectNN, respectively; obtains 85.0%(+0.1%) in Cls.mIoU on ShapeNetPart; and reaches 71.1% mAcc on S3DIS Area 5. Overall, decoder-free causal latent prediction provides a simple, scalable, and potentially modality-agnostic paradigm for point-cloud self-supervised learning, offering a new 3D perspective on foundation-style predictive learning for 3D data.
Yumeng Yao, Jingzhi Dong, Haowen Gu +4
Nanjing University of Science and Technology · Hangzhou City University · East China Normal University +1