Organizations: Nanjing University, China · University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia · Australian National University, Australia · University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Primitive-based 3D segmentation offers a compact and explicit alternative to dense surface prediction, naturally supporting structural abstraction and boundary localization. However, geometric decomposition alone does not determine how primitives should be organized into semantic parts: a single part may span multiple primitives, while geometrically similar or touching primitives may belong to different parts. We therefore introduce RePart (Reinforcement Part Reasoning), which formulates primitive-to-part organization as a finite-horizon Markov decision process and learns semantic organization through trajectory-level reinforcement reasoning. RePart constructs a Composable Primitive Workspace from fine-grained superquadrics and applies a merge-and-stop policy whose decisions are optimized by their downstream effects on the resulting partition rather than local primitive compatibility. The inferred part identities are then mapped back to the original mesh through Boundary-Aware Surface Labeling, preserving accurate surface boundaries beyond the primitive approximation. On PartNet, RePart achieves the strongest results across all four aggregate partition metrics; on 3DCoMPaT++, it obtains the highest RI and SC without target-dataset fine-tuning. These results demonstrate that reinforcement reasoning provides an effective mechanism for organizing geometric primitives into semantic parts while retaining dense segmentation accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/EngineeringAI-LAB/RePart.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Primitive segmentation exposes compact structural abstractions, while organizing primitives into semantic parts requires sequential decisions, making reinforcement learning a natural fit.
Figure 2: Overview of RePart. RePart addresses primitive-based 3D segmentation through three coupled stages that bridge dense geometry, part structure, and surface boundaries. (a) Composable Primitive Workspace abstracts the dense surface into compact, composable geometric units for structural reasoning. (b) Reinforcement-Learning Part Reasoning organizes these primitives into coherent part-level structure. (c) Boundary-Aware Surface Labeling localizes the inferred part identities back onto the original surface to recover dense, boundary-aware segmentation.
PartNet
3DCoMPaT++
Method
Furn.
Cont.
Daily
Furn.
Cont.
Daily
MPS
0.1591
0.5313
0.2169
0.3193
0.1144
0.2008
PartField
0.4098
0.6418
0.4969
0.2438
0.4127
0.4018
P3-SAM
0.3243
0.5663
0.5411
0.4147
0.5110
0.6003
SAMPart3D
0.2520
0.5111
0.4899
0.3313
0.4544
0.4720
PriMAny
0.2255
0.2067
0.3032
0.2419
0.1964
0.3236
Table 1: Category-group mIoU on PartNet and 3DCoMPaT++. RePart uses joint fine-tuning; bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best results.
Table 4
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on five PartNet shapes (top five rows) and five 3DCoMPaT++ shapes (bottom five rows). RePart reduces the fragmented MPS decomposition and produces coherent part partitions across both datasets.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure A.1: PPO training rewards for category-specific training and mixed-category training. Each point is averaged over a non-overlapping window of five epochs.
PartNet
3DCoMPaT++
Policy
Furn.
Cont.
Daily
Avg.
Furn.
Cont.
Daily
Avg.
Direct mixed
0.4186
0.6314
0.5263
0.5308
0.3558
0.4733
0.4477
0.4236
Staged joint
0.4247
0.6456
0.5432
0.5460
0.3703
0.5149
0.4607
0.4476
Appendix
Table A.1: Category-level mIoU under direct mixed-category and staged joint training. Bold denotes the preferred result.
Parameter
Category-specific
Joint
Role
num_samples
300
900
Number of PartNet training shapes. The joint set is the union of the three category groups.
train_epochs
200
100
Number of outer training epochs. Each epoch collects fresh trajectories before PPO updates.
lr
1×10−4
5×10−5
Adam learning rate. The lower joint rate reduces changes to the averaged specialist initialization.
rollout_episodes_per_epoch
304
304
Number of complete merge-and-stop episodes collected in each outer epoch.
rollout_workers
16
16
Parallel workers used to collect trajectories. This changes throughput, not the objective.
ppo_epochs
4
4
Number of optimization passes over each collected rollout buffer.
Appendix
Table A.2: Data, schedule, and PPO settings for category-specific and joint training.
Parameter
Category-specific
Joint
Role
bootstrap_source
MPS
MPS
Uses the MPS decomposition as the initial over-segmented SQ proxy.
point_sample_size
512
512
Number of mesh-surface points sampled whenever the geometry observation is encoded.
merge_neighbor_k
4
4
Restricts each group to merge candidates among its four nearest groups.
sq_label_method
coverage
coverage
Assigns training-time SQ labels using geometric coverage rather than point-wise majority alone.
final_mesh_mapping_mode
atom
atom
Maps grouped SQs by atom voting, SQ volumetric rescue, and a final nearest-surface fallback.
aux_part_loss_w
0.5
0.5
Weight for the critic’s auxiliary prediction of terminal part mIoU.
Appendix
Table A.3: Representation, supervision, reward, and output settings shared by both training stages.
Figure A.2: PPO reward curves on the 300-shape furniture training set. Curves are averaged over every five epochs. The default cold-start PPO setting uses κ=4 and both group-count penalties.
mIoU ↑
∣GT−K∣↓
Training setting
PartNet
3DCoMPaT++
PartNet
3DCoMPaT++
Cold-start PPO (default)
0.4280
0.3699
4.1500
5.9167
BC warm start + PPO
0.4165
0.3566
–
–
No group-count penalties
0.4130
0.3558
9.9667
11.0833
Appendix
Table A.4: Furniture results for reward-shaping and behavior-cloning variants. Count error is the mean absolute difference between the terminal group count and the ground-truth part count; lower is better. All models use the same 300 PartNet furniture training shapes.
Seed
mIoU ↑
RI ↑
VoI ↓
SC ↑
42
0.4280
0.7804
1.2997
0.5751
91161
0.4266
0.7669
1.3310
0.5649
926
0.4311
0.7967
1.3198
0.5794
339
0.4247
0.7240
1.3500
0.5496
32746
0.4253
0.7551
1.3148
0.5646
Mean (variance)
0.4271 ( 6.513×10−6 )
0.7646 ( 7.560×10−4 )
1.3231 ( 3.533×10−4 )
0.5667 ( 1.330×10−4 )
Appendix
Table A.5: Random-seed sensitivity of RePart-S trained on 300 PartNet furniture shapes. The final row reports the mean, with sample variance in parentheses.
Feature group
Dim.
Components
Update and scaling
Point token
P×7
Raw xyz, centered and radius-normalized xyz, and normalized radial distance.
Points are resampled per state; center and radius are recomputed by the encoder.
SQ token
M×11
Two exponents, three axis lengths, three Euler angles, and three translations.
Fixed after MPS; inactive slots are zero padded and masked.
Group context
M×7
Nearest-SQ distance, group-size ratio, group diagonal, group-center radius, group support, candidate degree, and nearest-group AABB gap.
Recomputed after each merge from all members of the current group.
PCA linearity, planarity, and scattering; SQ–PCA axis alignment; mean and 90th-percentile surface residuals.
Recomputed from assigned points; residuals are divided by scene radius.
Global progress
4
Step progress, primitive-slot occupancy, group-slot occupancy, and group count relative to initialization.
Recomputed after each action from normalized counts.
Appendix
Table B.6: Geometry-only state used by the RePart actor. Dimensions use M SQ slots, P sampled points, and C candidate pairs. Subgroups follow their order in the implementation.
Target part-count ratio, signed and absolute group-count errors, and exact-count indicator.
Critic only; recomputed after each merge.
target_group_count_ratio
1
Ground-truth part count divided by M .
Auxiliary target for the actor’s geometry-based count predictor.
Appendix
Table B.7: Label-derived quantities available only during training. They are excluded from the deployed actor observation.
Figure B.3: Grouped feature ablations on 100 PartNet furniture shapes. Curves show PPO reward averaged over every five epochs during the 100-epoch training runs. Each w/o variant zeros only the indicated feature group.
Figure B.4: Asymmetric and symmetric training on 300 PartNet furniture shapes for 200 epochs. Curves show PPO reward averaged over every five epochs. The asymmetric variant uses label-derived critic features and target-count supervision only during training; both actors use geometry-only inputs.
Category
Projection
mIoU ↑
SC ↑
VoI ↓
Final cov.
FB faces ↓
Daily-use
Facewise nearest SQ
0.4500
0.5574
1.2427
1.0000
–
Daily-use
+ Curvature atoms
0.5351
0.6597
0.8608
1.0000
3.7864%
Daily-use
+ SQ volumetric evidence
0.5432
0.6598
0.8607
1.0000
3.1309%
Furniture
Facewise nearest SQ
0.3310
0.4645
1.8139
1.0000
–
Furniture
+ Curvature atoms
0.4203
0.5536
1.3358
1.0000
6.8709%
Furniture
+ SQ volumetric evidence
0.4247
0.5522
1.3373
1.0000
0.9656%
Appendix
Table C.8: Ablation of Boundary-Aware Surface Labeling on PartNet. Partition metrics are evaluated on all valid faces after the common fallback. Final coverage is 100% for every variant; FB faces denotes the percentage assigned only by fallback and does not apply to direct facewise nearest assignment. Bold denotes the preferred result.
Method
mIoU ↑
RI ↑
VoI ↓
SC ↑
MPS
0.2103
0.4460
1.1156
0.4460
PartField
0.4295
0.7416
1.1886
0.5875
P3-SAM
0.3834
0.7112
1.1090
0.5851
SAMPart3D
0.2393
0.5380
1.3913
0.4574
PriMAny
0.2028
0.5793
2.7416
0.2379
RePart (Ours)
0.3992
0.7033
0.9327
0.5934
Appendix
Table D.9: Part segmentation on PartNet categories excluded from training. Results are averaged over the six unseen categories. Bold and underline denote the best and second-best results, respectively.
Category
MPS
PartField
P3-SAM
SAMPart3D
PriMAny
RePart
Bed
0.0789
0.2908
0.2313
0.1526
0.2094
0.2661
Display
0.1980
0.4304
0.4301
0.2888
0.2000
0.4693
Hat
0.4417
0.6135
0.7073
0.3813
0.1860
0.6222
Laptop
0.1662
0.3291
0.3184
0.2097
0.2385
0.3672
Refrigerator
0.1330
0.3337
0.1930
0.1464
0.1289
0.2554
TrashCan
0.2439
0.5791
0.4206
0.2530
0.2539
0.4153
Appendix
Table D.10: Category-level mIoU on PartNet categories excluded from training. Bold and underline denote the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure D.5: Qualitative comparison on PartNet categories excluded from training.
Figure E.6: Additional qualitative comparisons on PartNet.
Figure E.7: Additional cross-dataset qualitative comparisons on 3DCoMPaT++.
Existing 3D part decomposition methods do not necessarily partition the original shape into non-overlapping parts that collectively cover the entire shape, allowing overlaps or gaps that hinder downstream part-level applications. We instead formulate part decomposition as a joint partitioning of the entire shape, where the predicted parts are non-overlapping and jointly recover the entire shape. Our key insight is that part decomposition should consider all desired parts jointly, rather than modeling each part independently. To this end, we develop a promptable model for 3D part decomposition from images or meshes. Users can specify desired parts through 3D point prompts for controllable decomposition. Given one point prompt per desired part, our model produces the corresponding parts as a complete partition of the entire shape. We build on a pretrained 3D generation model and first obtain a shape latent from either an input image or mesh. We then introduce a prompt encoder that maps each 3D point prompt to a part token while attending to the shape latent. To decode the desired parts, we propose a novel part decoder jointly scoring the entire shape against all part tokens in a coarse-to-fine manner, assigning every position within the shape volume to exactly one part. We perform part decomposition in this shared shape latent space, enabling a unified model for image-to-part generation, mesh-to-part generation, and part segmentation. Our method outperforms existing works on all part-quality metrics across all three tasks, and improves compatibility among parts by an order of magnitude over previous SOTA methods. Code and models will be released.
A 3D asset admits multiple valid part decompositions, while semantics-aware segmentation should reflect both the desired granularity and the parts a user wants to extract. Ideally, a practical segmentation model should strive for a simple principle: what you ask for is what you get. However, realizing this goal is hindered by two core obstacles: the lack of multi-granularity training data and the absence of a holistic control mechanism. We propose FLEXPART, a unified framework for text-controlled 3D mesh segmentation. To establish flexible control, we introduce a holistic control prompt comprising semantic part names with location and shape clauses. To support this mechanism, we utilize an automated Vision-Language Model (VLM) pipeline to construct a large-scale dataset of multi-granularity partitions and their corresponding prompts. Driven by this data, FLEXPART generates a view-independent part-identity field in native 3D space, directly assigning discrete part IDs to mesh faces. To compel the model to respect semantic conditions rather than rely on geometric priors, we train the model using randomized background dropping. Furthermore, an inference-time VLM planner can automatically complete descriptive clauses from 2D renderings, allowing users to simply name the desired parts in ordinary words. FLEXPART with planner-completed prompts outperforms the strongest evaluated baseline by 15% in mIoU, even when that baseline receives ground-truth guidance. On our held-out FLEXPARTBENCH, FLEXPART leads at each granularity and improves average mIoU by 22% over the strongest baseline. With only the requested part names supplied by the user, it also improves IoU by 35% over the strongest click-driven baseline on selective segmentation.
Yiqun Zhao, Jiachen Xu, Yihao Zhi +5
The University of Hong Kong · Tencent Hunyuan · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen +1
Accurate 3D part decomposition requires separating shapes into structurally meaningful components with precise boundaries while preserving articulation seams and thin attachments. Existing approaches often suffer from a structural-scale mismatch: geometric evidence for separation is most reliable at the meso scale, yet many pipelines operate either too globally to respect joints or too locally to remain robust to noise. We propose Hi-TOPS, a Hierarchical Topology-aware Scoring Prior that aggregates complementary intrinsic cues into a multi-resolution Flow-Freeze field. Flow regions provide expandable support for primitive coverage, while Freeze regions restrict growth near articulations and thin structures. A TSDF-guided body-surface superquadric fitter then captures dominant cores and residual surface structures, followed by SQ-to-mesh assignment for connected, boundary-aligned parts. Across diverse benchmarks, Hi-TOPS delivers stable, editable decompositions without semantic supervision or 2D foundation priors.
Ruoyu Wu, Zhenhong Sun, Xiaoming Gong +5
University of New South Wales, Australia · Australian National University, Australia · Nanjing University, China +2