Understanding objects in 3D from a single image is a cornerstone of spatial intelligence. A key step toward this goal is monocular 3D object detection--recovering the extent, location, and orientation of objects from an input RGB image. To be practical in the open world, such a detector must generalize beyond closed-set categories, support diverse prompt modalities, and leverage geometric cues when available. Progress is hampered by two bottlenecks: existing methods are designed for a single prompt type and lack a mechanism to incorporate additional geometric cues, and current 3D datasets cover only narrow categories in controlled environments, limiting open-world transfer. In this work we address both gaps. First, we introduce WildDet3D, a unified geometry-aware architecture that natively accepts text, point, and box prompts and can incorporate auxiliary depth signals at inference time. Second, we present WildDet3D-Data, the largest open 3D detection dataset to date, constructed by generating candidate 3D boxes from existing 2D annotations and retaining only human-verified ones, yielding over 1M images across 13.5K categories in diverse real-world scenes. WildDet3D establishes a new state-of-the-art across multiple benchmarks and settings. In the open-world setting, it achieves 22.6/24.8 AP3D on our newly introduced WildDet3D-Bench with text and box prompts. On Omni3D, it reaches 34.2/36.4 AP3D with text and box prompts, respectively. In zero-shot evaluation, it achieves 40.3/48.9 ODS on Argoverse 2 and ScanNet. Notably, incorporating depth cues at inference time yields substantial additional gains (+20.7 AP on average across settings).
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of WildDet3D. Given a single RGB image and an optional depth map, WildDet3D performs open-vocabulary monocular 3D object detection by accepting flexible prompt modalities—text queries, 2D point clicks, or 2D bounding boxes—and predicting full 3D bounding boxes for the specified objects. This unified framework enables interactive, open-world 3D perception across diverse scenes and thousands of object categories, supporting applications in mobile devices, robotics, and AR/VR. The model gracefully leverages additional geometric cues, i.e . , depth when available. To train WildDet3D for broad generalization, we also curate WildDet3D-Data, a large-scale in-the-wild dataset with approximately 1M human-verified samples spanning 13K categories.
Figure 2: Input modality comparison for generalized 3D detection. LiDAR point clouds lack reliable height information and full 6-DoF rotation cues. RGB images provide dense appearance features but suffer from inherent scale and occlusion ambiguity. By combining RGB with optional depth, our approach retains the rich visual semantics needed for open-vocabulary recognition while reducing metric scale ambiguity when geometric signals are available.
Figure 3: Overview of WildDet3D. Given an RGB image and optional depth input, dual-vision encoders (Image + RGBD) extract visual features and depth latents in parallel. The depth fusion module processes the depth latents generated by the RGBD encoder and combines it with image features from the image encoder via element-wise addition to produce enriched visual queries, which are then integrated with diverse input prompts via the promptable detector . The resulting outputs are passed through cascaded 2D and 3D Heads for open-vocabulary object detection, while the depth latents are separately decoded for depth estimation. Although our primary focus is 3D object detection, the auxiliary 2D detection and depth heads provide complementary supervision that improves overall performance.
Figure 4: Overview of the WildDet3D-Data pipeline. Given an image with 2D boxes or masks and a depth-derived point cloud, five complementary models generate candidate 3D bounding boxes, shown in different colors. These candidates are refined through translation and rotation optimization, followed by rule-based filtering. The filtered candidates then enter two parallel selection branches: a VLM filtering branch, which scores each candidate on six perceptual criteria and retains those whose scores exceed a threshold, and a human annotation branch, in which annotators select the best candidate and assess its quality.
Figure 5: Qualitative examples from WildDet3D-Data. Each pair shows 3D bounding box annotations overlaid on the input image with category labels (left) and the corresponding 3D bounding boxes rendered in the reconstructed point cloud (right). The dataset covers diverse settings including indoor scenes (desks, kitchens), outdoor environments (floating markets, streets), and animals in the wild, spanning a wide range of object categories, scales, and spatial layouts.
Split
Source
Images
Ann.
Categories
Type
Scene
Max depth
Existing datasets
Omni3D [ 5 ]
KITTI, nuSc., SUNRGBD, etc.
234K
3M+
98
Human
Driving, Furniture
67 m
COCO-3D [ 61 ]
COCO
18K
92K
80
Synthetic
In-the-wild
35 m
CA-1M [ 24 ]
ARKitScenes
3,500 (videos)
400K
Class-agnostic
Human
Indoor
5 m
WildDet3D-Data
Train (Human)
COCO, LVIS, Obj365, V3Det
102,979
229,934
12,064
Human
In-the-wild
Table 1: WildDet3D-Data statistics. Human annotations are rated by crowd-source workers, while synthetic annotations are auto-selected by VLM scoring. Combined, the dataset spans 13.5K categories—a 138 × increase over Omni3D’s 98 categories.
Figure 7
Method
Training data
AP rare
AP common
AP frequent
AP 3D
Text Prompt
3D-MOOD [ 59 ]
Omni3D
2.4
2.1
2.6
2.3
WildDet3D
Omni3D
9.0
6.5
5.2
6.8
WildDet3D w/ depth
Omni3D
23.0
21.5
16.1
20.7
WildDet3D
Omni3D, Others, WildDet3D-Data
28.3
21.6
18.7
22.6
WildDet3D w/ depth
Omni3D, Others, WildDet3D-Data
47.4
40.7
37.2
41.6
Table 3: WildDet3D-Bench evaluation . We observe that (1) WildDet3D outperforms baseline models when trained on the same data ( i.e . , Omni3D), (2) our newly introduced WildDet3D-Data further improves performance by a significant margin (6.8 → 22.6, 8.4 → 24.8), and (3) incorporating depth input at test time nearly doubles performance (22.6 → 41.6, 24.8 → 47.2).
Method
KITTI [ 17 ]
nuScenes [ 7 ]
SUNRGBD [ 46 ]
Hypersim [ 43 ]
ARKitScenes [ 4 ]
Objectron [ 1 ]
AP 3D
Text Prompt
Cube R-CNN [ 5 ]
32.6
30.1
15.3
7.5
41.7
50.8
23.3
Uni-MODE* [ 28 ]
29.2
36.0
23.0
8.1
48.0
66.1
28.2
3D-MOOD Swin-T [ 59 ]
32.8
31.5
21.9
10.5
51.0
64.3
28.4
3D-MOOD Swin-B [ 59 ]
31.4
35.8
23.8
9.1
53.9
67.9
30.0
WildDet3D
37.0
31.7
38.9
16.5
64.6
60.5
34.2
Table 4: Omni3D evaluation. Our model outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods in both text and box prompt settings. Incorporating depth input at test time further improves performance significantly.
Argoverse 2 [ 55 ]
ScanNet [ 12 ]
Method
AP ↑
mATE ↓
mASE ↓
mAOE ↓
ODS ↑
AP ↑
mATE ↓
mASE ↓
mAOE ↓
ODS ↑
Cube R-CNN [ 5 ]
8.6
0.903
0.867
0.953
8.9
20.0
0.733
0.774
0.921
19.5
3D-MOOD Swin-T [ 59 ]
14.8
0.782
0.697
0.612
22.5
27.3
0.630
0.726
0.650
30.2
3D-MOOD Swin-B [ 59 ]
14.7
0.755
0.680
0.580
23.8
28.8
0.612
0.706
0.655
31.5
WildDet3D
43.4
0.714
0.645
0.526
40.3
56.5
0.601
0.720
0.437
48.9
WildDet3D w/ depth
43.4
0.701
0.645
0.526
40.4
57.6
0.589
0.707
0.422
50.2
Table 5: Zero-shot evaluation. ODS is the Open Detection Score [ 59 ] ; higher is better. mATE, mASE, mAOE denote mean translation, scale, and orientation errors (lower is better).
Method
AP rare
AP common
AP frequent
AP 3D
Box Prompt
OVMono3D-LIFT [ 60 ]
12.3
7.1
11.4
9.9
DetAny3D [ 64 ]
8.3
8.2
4.9
7.1
WildDet3D
8.1
6.3
8.5
7.5
WildDet3D w/ depth
26.2
31.1
24.6
27.7
Table 6: Stereo4D evaluation. AP is computed using center-distance matching. All models are evaluated in a zero-shot manner, i.e . , not trained on Stereo4D.
Configuration
KITTI [ 17 ]
nuScenes [ 7 ]
SUNRGBD [ 46 ]
Hypersim [ 43 ]
ARKitScenes [ 4 ]
Objectron [ 1 ]
AP 3D
Full model
27.9
28.2
33.9
13.2
59.4
56.8
30.2
w/o 3D confidence head
28.0
27.9
32.1
13.0
58.2
56.9
29.4 ( − 0.8)
w/o 2D head (3D only)
18.3
15.6
5.1
9.7
28.5
10.9
11.1 ( − 19.1)
Table 7: Detection head architecture. Joint 2D+3D prediction is critical; the 3D confidence head provides complementary geometry-aware scoring. Evaluated in the oracle setting on Omni3D.
Configuration
KITTI [ 17 ]
nuScenes [ 7 ]
SUNRGBD [ 46 ]
Hypersim [ 43 ]
ARKitScenes [ 4 ]
Objectron [ 1 ]
AP 3D
Full model
27.9
28.2
33.9
13.2
59.4
56.8
30.2
w/o O2M matching
23.2
23.9
30.8
12.2
56.8
53.5
27.7 ( − 2.5)
w/o geometry loss
28.3
27.7
28.6
11.1
57.0
56.4
28.5 ( − 1.7)
w/o deep supervision
28.1
28.3
32.4
12.6
58.7
56.6
29.9 ( − 0.3)
w/o ignore-aware suppression
28.2
29.4
33.2
13.0
59.2
56.4
30.0 ( − 0.2)
Table 8: Training objectives. One-to-many matching and geometry loss are the most impactful training signals; deep supervision and ignore-aware suppression provide smaller but consistent gains. Evaluated in the oracle setting on Omni3D.
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison on in-the-wild images (box prompts). Each block shows the same scene detected by three models, all prompted using 2D bounding boxes. From top to bottom: 2D box prompt visualizations (only box prompts are used, the text labels are for reference), ground truth 3D boxes, WildDet3D predictions, OVMono3D predictions, and DetAny3D predictions, with 2D overlays and corresponding 3D bounding boxes. WildDet3D produces more accurate 3D localization and tighter boxes across diverse scenarios, including animals, vehicles, indoor electronics, and small food items.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison on in-the-wild images (text prompts). Each block shows the same scene detected by WildDet3D (top) and 3D-MOOD (bottom), prompted with text categories only.
Figure 9: Real-world deployment demos. Each row shows three frames from a different deployment platform, demonstrating WildDet3D across diverse interaction modes and environments.
Figure 10: WildDet3D-agent: referring expression localization. Results of 3D box outputs by WildDet3D compared to VST [ 57 ] and Qwen3-VL [ 56 ] . WildDet3D-Agent more reliably localizes the queried object.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Stage
Data
Epochs
LR decay ( s1 / s2 )
Init
1
Omni3D
12
2/3 / 5/6
Scratch
2
Omni3D + Others + WildDet3D-Data (H+S)
12
2/3 / 5/6
Stage 1
3
Omni3D + WildDet3D-Data (H)
3
1/3 / 2/3
Stage 2
Appendix
Table 9: Training stage summary.
Figure 11: Annotation interface. Two example tasks from the WildDet3D-Data annotation interface. The top panel shows the reference image with the target 2D box highlighted in yellow and all candidate 3D boxes projected in color. Each candidate column (A–D, color-coded) shows a cropped 2D projection and an orthographic point cloud view. Annotators select the best candidate and rate its quality as good_fit , acceptable , unacceptable (3D) , or unacceptable (2D) .
Figure 12: Qualitative examples from WildDet3D-Data. Each pair shows 3D bounding box annotations overlaid on the input image with category labels (left) and the corresponding 3D bounding boxes rendered in the reconstructed point cloud (right).
Figure 13: Box-prompted comparison. Each block shows the same scene detected by three models, all prompted using 2D bounding boxes. From top to bottom: 2D box prompt visualizations (only box prompts are used, the text labels are for reference), ground truth 3D boxes, WildDet3D predictions, OVMono3D predictions, and DetAny3D predictions, with 2D overlays and corresponding 3D bounding boxes.
Figure 14: Text-prompted comparison. Each block shows the same scene detected by WildDet3D (top) and 3D-MOOD (bottom), prompted with text categories only.
Open-vocabulary monocular 3D detectors report strong in-domain performance, but each evaluates under a different protocol, several rely on per-image category oracles unavailable at deployment, and all collapse geometry and semantics into a single AP metric. To address this, we introduce OV3D-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark that compares open-vocabulary monocular 3D detectors under deployment-realistic conditions across seven indoor and outdoor datasets. Our benchmark replaces the per-image class name oracle with test-time dataset-level class name prompts, and decouples detection accuracy along three axes: localization, semantic robustness, and cross-domain transfer. We evaluate seven representative detectors and find that (i) they localize objects well yet often mislabel a correctly localized box as a semantically adjacent category; (ii) accuracy is highly sensitive to prompt phrasing (e.g. WildDet3D's performance collapses from 18.6 to 5.4 AP when prompted with "a detailed high-resolution photo of a car" rather than "car"); and (iii) the widely adopted target-aware protocol hides these errors (e.g. inflating DetAny3D's AP by 1.9 × on ScanNet). Lastly, we demonstrate that simply remapping a frozen closed-vocabulary detector's predictions using a contrastive vision-language encoder such as SigLIPv2 performs competitively against recent purpose-built open-vocabulary methods. This indicates that geometric localization is more mature, while open-vocabulary semantics remains the primary bottleneck.
Mariia Gladkova, Neehar Peri, Ishan Khatri +2
Technical University of Munich · Carnegie Mellon University · StackAV
Three-dimensional object detection for autonomous driving is dominated by detectors trained on large corpora of human-annotated 3D boxes. Such a detector learns a fixed category list, and everything outside it is invisible. This paper asks whether the task can be solved training-free and open-vocabulary. A promptable segmentation model (SAM3), queried with class names as text prompts, supplies instance masks in the vehicle's six surround-view cameras, and the masks are turned into metric 3D boxes using the geometry of the scene. The core is a controlled three-stage comparison on nuScenes in which 2D detection is held fixed and only the source of 3D geometry changes. Geometry predicted from images alone reaches 0.183 mean average precision (mAP) under the official protocol; fitting boxes from raw LiDAR points inside the same masks with training-free rules reaches 0.298 mAP / 0.348 nuScenes detection score (NDS) at zero labeling cost; borrowing supervised box geometry at inference time lifts the same detections to 0.413 mAP / 0.555 NDS, which locates the pipeline's largest deficit in measurement precision rather than 2D detection, while class confusion and confidence calibration survive that substitution. Reversing the direction, a three-state camera-witness rule built from the same masks improves a supervised LiDAR-only detector from 0.596 to 0.630 mAP, roughly half the gain of fully supervised camera fusion, with no training. A coverage analysis shows that SAM3 finds 84% of in-range objects with a correctly named mask; the classes that fail in the official metric are misnamed or geometrically unforgiving, not unseen.
Ömer Faruk Deniz, Mustafa Taha Koçyiğit
Institute of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, Boğaziçi University, South Campus, Bebek, 34342, Istanbul, Türkiye
Monocular 3D object detection typically relies on pseudo-labeling techniques to reduce dependency on real-world annotations. Recent advances demonstrate that deterministic linguistic cues can serve as effective auxiliary weak supervision signals, providing complementary semantic context. However, hand-crafted textual descriptions struggle to capture the inherent visual diversity of individuals across scenes, limiting the model's ability to learn scene-aware representations. To address this challenge, we propose Visual-referred Probabilistic Prompt Learning (VirPro), an adaptive multi-modal pretraining paradigm that can be seamlessly integrated into diverse weakly supervised monocular 3D detection frameworks. Specifically, we generate a diverse set of learnable, instance-conditioned prompts across scenes and store them in an Adaptive Prompt Bank (APB). Subsequently, we introduce Multi-Gaussian Prompt Modeling (MGPM), which incorporates scene-based visual features into the corresponding textual embeddings, allowing the text prompts to express visual uncertainties. Then, from the fused vision-language embeddings, we decode a prompt-targeted Gaussian, from which we derive a unified object-level prompt embedding for each instance. RoI-level contrastive matching is employed to enforce modality alignment, bringing embeddings of co-occurring objects within the same scene closer in the latent space, thus enhancing semantic coherence. Extensive experiments on the KITTI benchmark demonstrate that integrating our pretraining paradigm consistently yields substantial performance gains, achieving up to a 4.8% average precision improvement than the baseline. Code is available at https://github.com/AustinLCP/VirPro.
Chupeng Liu, Jiyong Rao, Shangquan Sun +2
The University of Sydney · Tongji University · Nanyang Technological University