Open-world 3D affordance grounding requires localizing functional object parts in 3D given free-form language queries. Existing methods typically assume pre-built object-centric 3D geometry and closed affordance ontologies, limiting deployment from raw RGB observations. We present AffordAny, an end-to-end framework that uses one monocular RGB image to construct large-scale text-conditioned 3D part supervision, ground affordances with a frozen vision-language model (VLM) guided decoder, and improve open-world generalization through pseudo-label self-training. Our automated pipeline produces a benchmark of 5,334 objects and 10,633 part-level samples spanning 473 categories, an order-of-magnitude increase in categorical diversity over prior work. The decoder progressively fuses frozen Cosmos-2B features with 3D geometry through spatial projection, instruction-conditioned semantic compression, and bidirectional geometry-semantics interaction. Minimal-perturbation pseudo-label self-training further adds new objects without human annotation. Under a systematic generalization protocol evaluating unseen objects, unseen categories, and unseen instruction paraphrases, our approach achieves 0.428 IoU on unseen objects and 0.315 IoU on unseen categories after self-training, with unseen-category mIoU improving by 6.3% relative (p<0.01) and an instruction sensitivity gap of only 0.105, demonstrating effectiveness and robustness of our method.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed dataset. Given an RGB image and instruction, the pipeline reconstructs object-centric 3D geometry and grounds the target part. We evaluate unseen instructions, unseen objects, and unseen categories.
Figure 2: AffordAny data construction pipeline: LVIS images are reconstructed and rendered from six views; an LLM proposes parts and instructions, a segmentation model labels 2D views, and multi-view voting lifts labels to 3D.
Taxonomy
Open
Dataset
Year
Source / Input
Annotation
Scale
Obj.
Part
Part
Obj.
Cat.
3D AffordanceNet ( Deng et al. 2021 )
2021
CAD / point cloud
3D heatmap
23K shapes
23
18
✗
✓
✗
GAPartNet ( Geng et al. 2023 )
2023
Articulated CAD / point cloud + mesh
3D part mask + pose
8,489 parts
27
9
✗
✓
✓
AffordPose ( Jian et al. 2023 )
2023
CAD / mesh + affordance
3D part + hand pose
26.7K inter.
13
8
✗
✗
✗
LASO ( Li et al. 2024 )
2024
CAD / point cloud + language
3D part mask
19,751 pairs
23
17
✗
✓
✓
AGPIL ( Zhu et al. 2025 )
2025
CAD + image / image + point cloud + language
3D heatmap
30,972 trip.
23
17
✗
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison with related affordance and interactive-region datasets. Under “Open,” Part denotes an unrestricted part-level vocabulary, while Obj. and Cat. denote evaluation on unseen instances and categories; dashes indicate unavailable results.
Figure 3: Part–category distribution for the most frequent parts and categories.
Figure 4: Architecture overview of AffordAny. A frozen Cosmos-2B VLM encodes the instruction and image; projection injection, semantic compression, and GPBlock bidirectional fusion combine these features with 3D geometry to predict per-point affordance scores.
Model
Best Val
Unseen Instruction
Unseen Object
Unseen Category
IoU
mIoU
AUC
MAE ↓
SIM
IoU
mIoU
AUC
MAE ↓
SIM
IoU
mIoU
AUC
MAE ↓
SIM
OpenAD
.413
.484
.390
.878
.255
.360
.362
.272
.783
.304
.294
.266
.234
.683
.345
.257
LASO
.453
.451
.320
.853
.205
.374
.394
.282
.820
.222
.324
.266
.227
.723
.264
.262
LMAffordance3D
.454
.469
.330
.852
.188
.387
.418
.301
.820
.203
.323
.244
.211
.669
.278
.223
AffordAny (Ours)
.473
.680
.630
.956
.112
.604
.428
.306
.829
.212
.339
.305
.243
.716
.266
.268
Table 2: Decoder comparison after 300 epochs. “Unseen Instruction” uses held-out paraphrases. Bold is best; ↓ is lower-is-better.
Model
Δ IoU
Δ mIoU
Δ AUC
Δ MAE
Δ SIM
OpenAD
-0.166
-0.166
-0.087
0.075
-0.065
LASO
-0.342
-0.429
-0.135
0.133
-0.323
LMAffordance3D
-0.360
-0.466
-0.140
0.129
-0.351
AffordAny
-0.105
-0.108
-0.031
0.037
-0.078
Table 3: Instruction robustness on matched object–part pairs (unseen − seen). Smaller absolute gaps are better.
Configuration
Unseen Object
Unseen Category
IoU
AUC
MAE
IoU
AUC
MAE
Full model
.428
.829
.212
.305
.716
.266
w/o Proj. Inj.
.416
.803
.211
.275
.691
.277
w/o Sem. Compr.
.398
.793
.219
.245
.653
.276
w/o GPBlock
.403
.808
.218
.270
.686
.273
w/o Instr. dropout
.402
.807
.217
.288
.694
.273
Table 4: Ablation of AffordAny (200 epochs). Semantic compression, GPBlock, projection injection, and instruction dropout contribute 0.060 , 0.035 , 0.030 , and 0.017 unseen-category IoU, respectively.
Split
Configuration
IoU
mIoU
AUC
MAE
Unseen Object
Baseline
.428
.306
.829
.212
+ Self-Training
.428
.315 ‡
.832 ‡
.223
+ Platt cal.
.428
.306
.832 ‡
.211
Unseen Category
Baseline
.305
.243
.716
.266
+ Self-Training
.315 ‡
.259 ‡
.720 ‡
.275
+ Platt cal.
.309
.246
.720 ‡
.265 ∗
Table 5: Pseudo-label self-training before/after Platt calibration. Pre-calibration improves segmentation, especially unseen-category mIoU (+0.016, +6.3%), while calibration restores MAE but attenuates the gain. ‡p<0.01 ; ∗p<0.05 .
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Stage
Instances/objects
Categories
LVIS training instances
1,270,141
1,203
Interactive-category pass
–
677
Image-filtered quota candidates
7,407
473
Completed object processing
7,398
473
Objects with validated parts
5,334
473
Validated part samples
10,633
473
Appendix
Table 6: Construction flow. Dashes denote a stage for which only the category-level count is used. The experimental manifests use a subset of the generated instruction pairs, as detailed in Table 7 .
Object split
Instruction use
Inst. rows
Objects
Cats.
Unique parts
Training
Used for optimization
12,134
3,049
331
511
Unseen instruction
6,067
3,049
331
511
Validation
Unseen object
710
351
159
233
Unseen category
1,515
764
71
138
Test
Unseen object
789
391
209
275
Unseen category
1,552
779
71
140
Appendix
Table 7: Experimental split statistics. “Inst. rows” counts object–part–instruction records; “Unique parts” counts normalized part-name types. For each training object–part pair, instruction indices 1 and 2 are used for optimization and index 0 is reserved for matched unseen-instruction evaluation. Validation and both test protocols also use only instruction index 0. For historical reasons, the optimization and unseen-instruction manifests are named train_unseen_instruction and train_seen_instruction , respectively. The final row reports unique objects, categories, and part-name types across manifests rather than summing those columns.
Figure 5: Dataset vocabulary word clouds. Label size is proportional to frequency in the word-cloud counts; colors separate neighboring labels and do not encode semantic groups. Underscores preserve multi-word canonical names. The visualization is descriptive: exact split sizes and unique-vocabulary counts are reported in Table 7 .
Tensor
Shape per sample
Role
X
4,096×3
normalized Gaussian centers
F
4,096×13
cached point features
haff
2,048
instruction-conditioned global VLM state
Fv
144×2,048
12×12 source-image token grid
P
4,096×256
encoded point tokens
Z
16×256
conditioned semantic prototypes
Appendix
Table 8: Principal tensors in the AffordAny decoder. Batch dimensions are omitted.
Cached-decoder quantity
Value
Trainable parameters
10.54M
BF16 parameter footprint
20.1 MiB
Profiled matrix operations
121.63 GFLOPs
Attention batched matmul
69.14 GFLOPs (56.8%)
Linear matmul
52.46 GFLOPs (43.1%)
BF16 latency, median / P95
16.5 / 18.6 ms
Appendix
Table 9: Batch-1 decoder cost for one 4,096-point object. Latency and allocated-memory measurements use BF16 autocast on one NVIDIA A100-SXM4-80GB after 20 warm-up iterations and over 100 timed forwards; inputs are already resident on the GPU.
Method
Frozen feature input
Adapted decoder
Trainable params.
Selected epoch
OpenAD
CLIP pooled text (512-D)
point–text cosine alignment
6.31M
130
LASO
77 CLIP text tokens
2 AFM/GPBlocks + 2-layer RPD
7.01M
120
LMAffordance3D
77 CLIP text tokens
2 fusion + 2 decoder layers
6.38M
140
AffordAny
Cosmos state + 144 visual tokens
prototypes + GPBlock + 4-layer decoder
10.54M
140
Appendix
Table 10: Controlled decoder implementations used in the main comparison. Parameter counts exclude frozen feature encoders. The comparison standardizes data, supervision, optimization, and model selection while preserving each method’s native feature representation and decoder design.
Analysis
Split
Model
N
IoU ↑
mIoU ↑
AUC ↑
MAE ↓
Human-verified
Unseen category
AffordAny
41
.3387
.2537
.7095
.3030
LASO
41
.2628
.1953
.6879
.3193
LMAffordance3D
41
.2596
.1988
.6452
.3151
OpenAD
41
.2897
.2437
.6747
.3715
Human-verified
Unseen object
AffordAny
54
.4371
.3570
.8556
.1901
LASO
54
.3656
.2766
.8299
.2165
Appendix
Table 11: Evaluation on the human-verified subsets, containing 41 unseen-category rows and 54 unseen-object rows. Bold denotes the best value within each split.
Split
Metric
Raw Δ
95% CI
Unseen obj.
IoU
+0.0002
[−0.0039,0.0042]
mIoU
+0.0089
[0.0050,0.0118]
Unseen cat.
IoU
+0.0098
[0.0068,0.0131]
mIoU
+0.0152
[0.0104,0.0183]
Appendix
Table 12: Paired-bootstrap differences for raw self-training minus the supervised baseline. For compactness, the table lists the overlap metrics; AUC and MAE are computed from the same paired resamples and their significance markers are reported in the main paper. Self-training significantly improves category-macro mIoU on both splits and IoU on unseen categories ( p<0.001 ), while maintaining unseen-object IoU ( p=0.461 ).
Figure 6: Per-category IoU distributions. Violins summarize categories; dots are individual category values and black bars denote means. “Unseen instruction” evaluates unseen wording on the training objects.
Figure 7: Metric-complementarity examples on unseen categories. Each block shows ground truth and the prediction at threshold 0.5. The values motivate joint reporting of overlap, ranking, and probability-error metrics.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison across unseen instructions, unseen objects, and unseen categories. Each group shows the source image/instruction, ground truth, and predictions. Red points denote the thresholded affordance region and the numbers are per-row IoU. These examples are selected for clear visualization and complement the aggregate results reported in the main tables.
Affordance grounding aims to localize where to interact with an object, a fundamental capability for embodied agents. Yet progress is bottlenecked by data: manual annotation is prohibitively expensive and confines existing datasets to a narrow set of predefined object and affordance categories. We introduce Affogato, a framework for open-vocabulary affordance grounding centered on Affogato-750K, a large-scale dataset of 750K 3D affordance heatmaps paired with natural language queries. We build it with a fully automated pipeline that orchestrates foundation models to generate them at scale without human labeling. It covers significantly more diverse categories than any existing dataset. For reliable evaluation, we further provide 5K human-verified test pairs. We also present Espresso-3D and Espresso-2D, simple yet effective models with a unified architecture across both modalities. Pretraining on Affogato-750K improves both Espresso and prior methods and yields the largest gains on unseen object and affordance categories, showing that it provides broadly transferable supervision across architectures.
Junha Lee, Eunha Park, Chunghyun Park +2
Pohang University of Science and Engineering (POSTECH) · SqueezeBits · RLWLRD
Functional affordance grounding requires more than recognizing an object: an agent must localize the specific region that supports an interaction, such as the handle to pull or the button to press. This is difficult for training-free vision-language pipelines because actionable regions are often small, visually ambiguous, and repeated across multiple same-category instances in a scene. We propose AFFORDMEM, a framework that grounds 3D functional affordances by remembering geometry at two levels. The first is cross-scene affordance memory: the agent maintains a category-level memory bank of RGB images with affordance regions rendered as overlays, and recalls the most informative examples at query time to guide a frozen VLM toward small operable subregions that text-only prompting consistently misses. The second is in-scene spatial memory: as the agent processes the scene, it organizes candidate instances and their 3D spatial relations into a structured scene graph, enabling the language model to resolve references over distant or currently unobserved candidates such as "the second handle from the top." AFFORDMEM requires no model fine-tuning and no target-scene annotation, using a reusable memory bank built from source scenes. On SceneFun3D, our method improves AP50 over the prior training-free state of the art by 3.23 on Split 0 and 3.7 on Split 1. Ablation studies support complementary benefits: cross-scene affordance memory improves fine-grained localization, while in-scene spatial memory provides the larger gain on spatially qualified queries. The project homepage is available at the project page.
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: \textit{\textbf{``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}{\textit{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