Grounding is a core capability of spatial vision-language models, yet most existing work focuses only on where a referred object is. Many 3D tasks also require knowing how it is oriented. Although existing 3D VLMs may predict oriented boxes, box pose does not explicitly capture object-centric orientation or symmetry-induced ambiguities. We introduce orientation grounding, a referring grounding task that predicts an object's 6D orientation and axial symmetry from a language or box query in single-view or multi-view scenes. To support this task, we construct ReferOri, with 331K multi-view and 387K single-view orientation-grounding queries obtained through scalable reconstruction, consistency checking, and human verification. We further present OG-VLM, which adapts a 3D VLM with structured box/orientation outputs, sign and symmetry tokens, and geometry-aware auxiliary losses. Across single-view and multi-view benchmarks, OG-VLM substantially outperforms orientation-aware VLM baselines and surpasses object-level orientation foundation models on scene-level referring benchmarks, showing that explicit orientation grounding is a distinct and learnable capability beyond localization. Downstream results validate its benefit for orientation-related spatial reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Orientation grounding extends localization grounding from predicting where a referred object is to estimating how it is oriented. ReferOri provides single-view and multi-view annotations with object boxes, 6D orientation, and axial symmetry labels, enabling OG-VLM to ground both object position and object-centric direction.
Figure 2: Overview of ReferOri dataset structure.
Figure 3: Overview of OG-VLM. Given multi-view frames, a single frame, or a 3D point cloud together with a text or box query, the VLM backbone generates structured grounding outputs with separate <bbox> and <ori> spans. Lightweight heads attached to the corresponding tokens provide localization, orientation, and symmetry supervision through geometry-aware losses.
Models
Multi-View Scene
Single-View Scene
ARKitScenes
ScanRefer ∗
Multi3DRefer ∗
Ori-COCO
RefCOCO ∗
RefCOCO+ ∗
RefCOCOg ∗
Acc15 ↑
Acc30 ↑
Acc15 ↑
Acc30 ↑
Acc15 ↑
Acc30 ↑
Acc ↑
Acc15 ↑
Acc30 ↑
Acc15 ↑
Acc30 ↑
Acc15 ↑
Acc30 ↑
Spatial Reasoner
–
–
–
–
–
–
14.9
4.5
14.5
4.5
14.0
3.9
13.1
VG-LLM
10.1
17.4
17.8
26.2
21.5
33.5
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Ours (only data)
43.1
45.4
63.1
66.6
68.1
70.6
60.1
31.1
60.9
31.1
60.8
28.8
57.8
Ours (+special token)
48.2
50.5
65.2
68.0
70.5
73.1
62.2
31.6
63.3
31.7
61.5
29.7
59.1
Table 1: Results on multi- and single-view scenes. Qualitative results appear in Fig. 5 in the appendix.
Models
ARKitScenes
ScanRefer ∗
Multi3DRefer ∗
Acc@15
Acc@30
Acc@15
Acc@30
Acc@15
Acc@30
Orientation foundation models
Orient Anything
18.3
35.8
17.4
34.5
16.9
33.1
Orient Anything V2
19.8
43.3
15.8
37.4
16.9
35.6
Ours (+geometric loss)
50.5
51.6
66.1
70.1
71.5
74.2
Table 2: Comparison with orientation foundation models.
Dataset
Ablation
X ( ↓ )
Y ( ↓ )
Z ( ↓ )
RefCOCO+ ∗
only data
37.9
40.8
17.8
special token
35.3
38.3
17.6
geometric loss
35.1
38.0
17.3
ScanRefer ∗
only data
38.4
38.6
0.1
special token
38.1
38.2
0.1
geometric loss
37.1
37.2
0.1
Table 3: Axis-wise mean orientation error (in degrees). X, Y, and Z denote the right, front, and up axes, respectively.
Model
Setting
Localization
Orientation
Acc 25%
Acc 50%
Mean Err. ( ∘ )
Acc@15
Acc@30
only data
w depth
68.7
36.3
29.6
31.1
60.8
w/o depth
1.2
0.0
34.3
24.7
52.3
special token
w depth
68.2
35.6
29.5
30.9
61.5
w/o depth
0.8
0.0
35.0
23.6
52.1
geometric loss
w depth
67.8
35.9
30.5
29.0
58.7
Table 4: Effect of depth on RefCOCO+ ∗ . For localization, we report the accuracy at IoU thresholds of 25% and 50%. For orientation grounding, we report the accuracy of predictions whose orientation error falls within 15∘ and 30∘ , as well as the mean orientation error.
Dataset
Model
Symmetric
Non-symmetric
Acc@15
Acc@30
Acc@15
Acc@30
RefCOCO+ ∗
only data
24.41
53.76
34.41
66.56
special token
26.76
53.05
34.44
67.36
geometric loss
28.87
58.69
35.31
68.79
ScanRefer ∗
only data
64.23
66.37
59.54
64.31
special token
65.97
68.40
58.37
63.69
Table 5: Effect of object symmetry on orientation grounding.
ScanRefer ∗
Multi3DRefer ∗
RefCOCO ∗
RefCOCO+ ∗
RefCOCOg ∗
Acc@15
Acc@30
Acc@15
Acc@30
Acc@15
Acc@30
Acc@15
Acc@30
Acc@15
Acc@30
w/o symmetry-adjusted
63.4
66.9
64.3
71.8
31.9
63.8
32.1
61.1
30.1
55.4
w/ symmetry-adjusted
66.1
70.1
71.5
74.2
32.0
63.9
32.2
62.1
30.2
60.5
Joint w/ IoU ≥ 0.25
45.2
47.8
43.0
45.7
25.8
50.2
24.5
47.7
21.5
39.1
Table 6: Comparison of three evaluation settings for OG-VLM. w/o symmetry-adjusted directly computes orientation accuracy without symmetry handling; w/ symmetry-adjusted accounts for symmetry-equivalent orientations when computing Acc@15 and Acc@30; and Joint additionally requires the predicted box to satisfy a localization IoU threshold of 0.25.
Figure 4: Results on three Orientation subsets of 3DSRBench ( In front of , On the left , and Viewpoint ). Avg. denotes the aggregate performance.
Model
EM@1 ↑
EM@1-Strict ↑
GS-Reasoner
29.02
18.05
Ours
32.64
28.18
Table 7: Downstream situated spatial reasoning results on MSQA.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Acc
Orient Anything V1 ( Wang et al., 2024b )
72.4
Orient Anything V2 ( Wang et al., 2026 )
86.4
SAM3D ( Chen et al., 2025a )
96.3
Appendix
Table 8: Validation of the annotation module on Ori-COCO (Acc).
Dataset
Agreement
Fleiss’ κ
ScanNet
96.00%
0.479
RefCOCO
96.27%
0.409
RefCOCO+
98.79%
0.436
RefCOCOg
98.68%
0.493
Overall
97.45%
0.454
Appendix
Table 9: Independent annotation audit: agreement between two evaluators.
Rotation
X Err.
Y Err.
Z Err.
Mean Err.
Acc@15
Acc@30
90∘
69.0
51.3
83.9
60.2
0.05
0.20
180∘
40.1
44.5
18.7
42.3
16.71
37.32
270∘
68.4
52.1
83.6
60.3
0.05
0.25
Appendix
Table 10: Sensitivity of OG-VLM to image-plane rotation of the input view. Axis-wise and overall mean orientation errors are in degrees; Acc@15/Acc@30 are reported in %.
Model
Settings
Acc@15
Acc@30
Ours (only data)
multi-view
68.08
70.64
single-view
58.43
61.46
language
20.00
40.00
Ours (+special token)
multi-view
70.50
73.06
single-view
56.88
60.33
language
8.04
10.80
Appendix
Table 11: Results on Multi3DRefer ∗ under different settings.
Model
ScanRefer
Multi3DRefer
RefCOCO
RefCOCO+
RefCOCOg
Acc 25%
Acc 25%
Acc 25%
Acc 25%
Acc 25%
Ours (only data)
55.68
55.43
71.54
68.91
62.37
Ours (+special token)
58.95
57.38
71.84
69.26
62.42
Ours (+geometric loss)
61.37
60.08
72.67
70.31
63.38
Appendix
Table 12: Localization grounding results at Acc25% on ScanRefer, Multi3DRefer, RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg.
Figure 5: Qualitative orientation-grounding results on RefCOCO+ and ScanNet. For RefCOCO+, gray arrows denote ground truth, while orange and red arrows denote predictions from Ours and SpatialReasoner, respectively. For ScanNet, solid axes denote ground truth and dashed axes denote predictions from Ours and VG-LLM, respectively.
3D visual grounding aims to localize the target object in a 3D scene from a natural language query, requiring both fine-grained semantic understanding and viewpoint-dependent spatial reasoning. Existing methods typically formulate semantic understanding as an auxiliary closed-set object classification task and rely on multi-view feature aggregation for viewpoint reasoning, limiting semantic generalization and weakening viewpoint-specific evidence. We observe that vision-language models naturally provide complementary capabilities through open-vocabulary semantic understanding and global scene perception. Based on this insight, we propose GuideGround, a VLM-guided framework that complements rather than replaces task-specific grounding models by leveraging VLMs for semantic enhancement and viewpoint-specific hypothesis verification. Specifically, we replace auxiliary closed-set object classification with VLM-generated object semantic descriptions to enhance semantic understanding. Meanwhile, instead of directly aggregating multi-view representations, we preserve viewpoint-specific grounding hypotheses through per-view grounding and explicitly verify them using VLMs across candidate viewpoints. Extensive experiments on the ReferIt3D benchmark demonstrate that GuideGround consistently outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods. Comprehensive ablation studies further confirm the effectiveness of both the proposed semantic understanding and viewpoint reasoning strategies.
We present GR3D, a spatial vision language model equipped with three complementary grounding capabilities--explicit 2D grounding, implicit 2D grounding, and monocular 3D grounding--within a single framework. GR3D introduces an implicit grounding mechanism that identifies entity mentions during generation and inserts the corresponding region tokens into the text stream, allowing the model to reference visual evidence on the fly when producing spatial chain-of-thought responses. In parallel, a region-prompted monocular 3D grounding design predicts 3D bounding boxes in the camera view from grounded region queries, supported by intrinsic-aware normalization and dense geometric supervision. Together, these grounding capabilities enable GR3D to decompose complex spatial understanding problems into grounded 2D perception followed by 3D inference. GR3D achieves consistent improvements across grounded and non-grounded spatial benchmarks, demonstrating grounding as an effective inductive bias for strengthening spatial understanding in VLMs. These grounding capabilities collectively enhance general spatial understanding beyond the grounding task itself.
Recent zero-shot 3D visual grounding methods leverage vision-language models (VLMs) to localize objects in 3D scenes from natural language queries. However, these methods typically rely on heuristic rules to select which camera views are provided to the VLM, often prioritizing object visibility rather than grounding relevance. We present IVSGround, a framework that learns Influential View Selection for VLM-based 3D visual grounding. Instead of using fixed heuristics, a lightweight view selector is trained to identify views that provide discriminative evidence for grounding. To obtain supervision signals, we generate training signals using feedback from a reasoning VLM through a two-stage rejection sampling process. During inference, the learned selector predicts query-conditioned influential views for each candidate object, which are then evaluated by a frozen reasoning VLM through comparative grounding. Experiments on ScanRefer and NR3D show that IVSGround consistently improves grounding accuracy over existing zero-shot pipelines, demonstrating that selecting where to look is crucial for effective 3D visual grounding. Project page: https://ivsground.github.io/
Tsung-Chih Chiang, Hsuan-Kung Yang, Jou-Min Liu +4
National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan · Woven by Toyota, Inc., Tokyo, Japan · National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan