Object-centric reconstruction seeks to recover the 3D structure of a scene through composition of independent objects. While this independence can simplify modeling, it discards strong signals that could improve reconstruction, notably repetition where the same object model is seen multiple times in a scene, or across scans. We propose the Joint Reconstruction Model (JRM) to leverage repetition by framing object reconstruction as one of personalized generation: multiple observations share a common subject that should be consistent for all observations, while still adhering to the specific pose and state from each. Prior methods in this direction rely on explicit matching and rigid alignment across observations, making them sensitive to errors and difficult to extend to non-rigid transformations. In contrast, JRM is a 3D flow-matching generative model that implicitly aggregates unaligned observations in its latent space, learning to produce consistent and faithful reconstructions in a data-driven manner without explicit constraints. Evaluations on synthetic and real-world data show that JRM's implicit aggregation removes the need for explicit alignment, improves robustness to incorrect associations, and naturally handles non-rigid changes such as articulation. Overall, JRM outperforms both independent and alignment-based baselines in reconstruction quality.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Comparison between different approaches to object-centric reconstruction. JRM offers a relaxation of explicit alignment and registration techniques. Objects are jointly reconstructed, allowing information flow between them, but without imposing hard constraints on similarity.
Figure 3: (a) JRM jointly reconstructs two nightstands k and k′ that appear in a single scan. (b) Our proposed coupled fusion block, in which the denoised tokens of two distinct objects attend to each other in the latent space to implicitly aggregate unaligned observations.
Figure 4: An example JRM reconstruction illustrating the benefit of joint reconstruction. From the first view alone it is not possible to discern the shape of the armrest. However, by adding in a source observation that observes the front, JRM is able to reconstruct the target view correctly.
Methods
Modality
Target-only
1 Rescan
3 Rescans
Point
Image
Text
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
MORE 2
✓
✗
✗
10.43
74.45
32.25
9.89
74.28
33.06
10.04
73.70
34.17
FM
✓
✗
✗
3.07
83.42
86.10
3.71
79.16
80.50
4.43
73.63
73.68
2.35
85.07
90.77
1.98
85.98
93.56
JRM
✓
✗
✗
3.46
83.26
85.20
2.95
84.88
87.83
3.07
84.80
86.91
FM
✓
✓
✓
3.12
84.19
88.57
3.50
81.92
84.55
3.62
80.09
81.17
Table 1: Quantitative results of temporal instance repetition with ground truth object matching. Numbers in gray color represent results of applying the oracle object alignment to the condition inputs of FM.
Methods
Target-only
Identical Pair
Similar Pair
Negative Pair
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
FM
3.33
83.83
87.04
2.77
85.46
90.91
4.78
77.11
72.51
8.83
72.99
59.22
JRM
2.61
82.26
87.99
2.49
82.93
88.70
2.72
82.09
86.90
3.04
80.89
86.31
Table 2: Quantitative results of spatial instance repetition where target objects are matched with different types of source objects. Numbers in gray color indicate applying the oracle alignment to the observations for FM.
Figure 5: Qualitative results on temporal instance repetition. Objects are colored from faded to solid tones reflecting chamfer distance to the ground truth. The reconstruction from JRM improves with more rescans, while those from FM degrade due to inaccurate alignments.
Figure 6: Plot of reconstruction quality versus: alignment error (left) ; matching error (right) . FM is sensitive to errors in both alignment and matching, while JRM is robust to these errors.
Figure 7: Results of FM and JRM with mismatched objects. FM naively fuses available observations while JRM presents robustness to incorrect object association.
Methods
State 0 - Rest
State 1
State 2
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
FM-align
5.83
80.15
70.98
5.37
65.68
76.32
5.49
64.91
76.19
FM-ind.
4.92
79.10
70.30
5.44
77.66
76.63
4.92
77.98
77.42
JRM
4.69
79.00
73.09
3.66
77.51
81.08
3.66
77.06
80.81
Table 3: Quantitative results for repeated articulating objects in different motion states. Numbers in gray reveal results with oracle rigid alignment between objects in different articulation states.
Figure 8: Reconstructions from FM-align and JRM for a repeated object in 3 different articulation states.
Methods
Replica
ScanNet++
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
DPRecon
4.65
74.87
71.95
5.53
72.47
65.98
FM
3.74
79.28
79.21
4.20
78.60
72.96
JRM
3.21
77.88
81.78
2.69
79.41
85.53
Table 4: Reconstruction results on real scenes, Replica and ScanNet++. JRM achieves overall the best performance by only training on pairs of synthetic objects.
Figure 9: Qualitative results on real-world scenes, including ScanNet++ and Replica. We use the same color for objects within the same match group. For each scene, we produce two close-up views focusing on the matched objects.
Neg. Ratio
Identical Pair
Similar Pair
Negative Pair
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
0.0
2.79
83.15
88.30
3.17
80.72
83.52
6.22
75.63
72.42
0.1
2.18
83.80
91.15
2.65
82.07
88.34
2.56
82.90
88.69
0.5
2.77
80.62
86.97
2.70
80.42
86.39
2.80
80.24
86.52
0.9
2.68
80.76
86.93
2.66
81.20
87.61
2.63
80.93
87.73
1.0
2.69
82.21
88.07
2.61
82.17
87.92
2.61
82.54
88.63
Table 5: Ablation on negative pair sampling ratio during training.
Figure 10: Illustration of a single-stream block taking coupled latents as input.
Figure 11: A simple flowchart of the complete pipeline of compositional 3D scene reconstruction from video inputs.
Figure 12: A top-down view illustration of how a synthetic scene is constructed with iterative object insertion by solving collision on 2D polygons (bounding boxes).
Figure 14: We show examples of generated synthetic scenes in scenarios of temporal instance repetition and articulation dynamics. In the last column, we visualize SLAM points (blue points), camera trajectory (gray diamonds) and 3D bounding boxes.
JRM
No Pair
Identical Pair
Similar Pair
Negative Pair
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
Replace
2.61
82.26
87.99
2.49
82.93
88.70
2.72
82.09
86.90
3.04
80.89
86.31
Insert
2.37
82.96
89.62
2.18
83.80
91.15
2.65
82.07
88.34
2.56
82.90
88.69
Table 6: Qualitative results on two JRM variants.
Methods
Modality
No Rescan
1 Rescan
3 Rescans
Point
Image
Text
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
CD ↓
NC ↑
F1 ↑
MORE 2 [ 49 ]
✓
✗
✗
10.43
74.45
32.25
10.08
74.12
32.94
10.24
73.40
33.36
FM
✓
✗
✗
3.07
83.42
86.10
3.82
78.87
80.05
4.68
72.42
71.45
2.66
84.25
88.86
2.67
84.30
89.38
JRM
✓
✗
✗
3.46
83.26
85.20
3.17
84.36
86.35
3.35
84.07
85.57
FM
✓
✓
✓
3.12
84.19
88.57
3.54
81.67
84.08
3.85
79.34
79.85
Table 7: Quantitative results of temporal instance repetition with predicted object matching and alignment by MORE 2 . Numbers in gray color represent results of only applying the oracle object alignment to the condition inputs of FM.
Figure 15: Reconstruction with similar source objects.
Figure 16: Reconstruction metrics for 18 chairs from ScanNet++ Scan 4 as the size of the group for joint reconstruction increases.
Figure 17: Reconstruction with all objects in a single group.
Figure 18: Comparison with MIDI-3D and SceneGen, both are conditioned on the single image displayed. Best viewed zoomed.
Figure 19: Additional qualitative results on real-world scenes, including ScanNet++ and Replica. We use the same color for objects within the same match group. For each scene, we produce two close-up views focusing on the matched objects.