Category-level 6D pose and shape estimation requires recovering an object's pose and geometry from partial observations without an exact instance model. We present ASM-6D, which couples generative complete-geometry prediction with explicit category-level pose-shape inference through shared correspondences. Given an RGB-D image, ASM-6D generates alternative complete 3D correspondence hypotheses whose point identities are shared with a category-level Active Shape Model (ASM), including occluded points. Each hypothesis is fitted directly for rotation, translation, metric scale, and instance shape without a separate correspondence-assignment stage. We analytically eliminate translation and shape coefficients, reducing fitting to a nine-variable scaled-rotation optimization problem that enables efficient batched evaluation of multiple hypotheses in real time. ASM-6D achieves state-of-the-art performance on ROPE and HouseCat6D benchmarks. Ablations demonstrate the importance of generative correspondence prediction and active shape variation. The representation also supports shape completion, shape-dependent pose ambiguity, tracking, and robotic grasping at 6-38 Hz, depending on the inference budget.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: ASM-6D generates alternative complete indexed 3D correspondence hypotheses, whose shared point identities enable direct ASM fitting for pose, scale, and instance shape with a computation rate of 6–38 Hz.
Fig. 2: Overview of ASM-6D. Standardized training shapes define category-level Active Shape Models (Sec III ). Given an RGB-D crop, the model generates multiple hypotheses of the complete indexed correspondence set (Sec IV ). Each hypothesis is reconstructed in metric coordinates and fitted to the known ASM or, when the category is unknown, to a finite library of candidate priors. A visibility-weighted fitting residual selects the final pose, metric scale, shape, and, when applicable, category (Sec V ). Online computation time of 33–147 ms from input RGB-D to output shape, pose, and class prediction.
Fig. 3: Shape standardization. A common 642-vertex icosphere template is deformed onto each normalized object surface while preserving vertex indices.
Method
AUC ↑
VUS ↑
Mean error ↓
IoU 25
IoU 50
IoU 75
5∘ /2 cm
5∘ /5 cm
10∘ /2 cm
10∘ /5 cm
Rot. ( ∘ )
Trans. (cm)
Prior work
NOCS [ 1 ]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
–
–
SGPA [ 31 ]
10.5
2.0
0.0
4.3
6.7
9.3
15.0
60.2
2.81
IST-Net [ 32 ]
28.7
10.6
0.5
2.0
3.4
5.3
8.8
78.4
3.40
HS-Pose [ 33 ]
31.6
13.6
1.1
3.5
5.3
8.4
12.7
63.3
3.02
TABLE I: Category-level pose estimation on ROPE and ASM-6D adaptation and distillation variants.
Fig. 4: Qualitative comparison on Omni6DPose ROPE . From top to bottom: ground truth, GenPose++ (GP++), and ASM-6D. Predicted 3D bounding boxes and coordinate frames visualize the pose, while ASM-6D additionally recovers the fitted object shape from its generated correspondences.
Factor
Setting
IoU 50 AUC ↑
10∘ /5 cm VUS ↑
Prediction
Regression ( H=1 )
11.58
16.98
Flow matching ( H=1 )
25.91
29.24
Hypotheses
H=1
30.07
37.73
H=4
30.59
38.65
H=40
30.95
39.14
Shape model
Category mean
19.82
34.63
TABLE II: Core design ablations on ROPE.
H
Known single category
All 156 priors
3 iter.
5 iter.
10 iter.
20 iter.
3 iter.
5 iter.
10 iter.
20 iter.
1
38.85
38.14
37.19
34.04
28.66
28.37
27.05
25.11
4
31.50
31.32
30.51
30.24
22.93
23.03
22.04
20.65
8
26.26
26.04
26.14
25.73
18.97
18.88
18.33
17.24
16
18.51
18.75
18.64
18.54
13.30
13.14
12.88
12.43
32
12.28
12.29
12.22
12.16
8.43
8.34
8.26
8.02
TABLE III: Full-pipeline throughput across hypothesis and ADMM iteration budgets in FPS.
Method
Shape
IoU 25 ↑
IoU 50 ↑
5∘ /2 ↑
5∘ /5 ↑
10∘ /2 ↑
10∘ /5 ↑
AG-Pose [ 34 ]
–
88.1
76.9
21.3
22.1
51.3
54.3
SpotPose [ 35 ]
–
89.1
77.0
23.8
24.5
52.3
54.8
GCE-Pose [ 36 ]
✓
–
79.2
24.8
25.7
55.4
58.4
ComPose [ 4 ]
✓
90.3
80.6
25.8
27.6
57.8
61.5
ASM-6D (HC6D)
✓
91.0
85.7
30.2
32.7
64.3
71.1
Additional SOPE pose-task pretraining
TABLE IV: Category-level pose estimation on HouseCat6D.
Fig. 5: ASM solver latency versus keypoint count with 40 hypotheses, 32 PCA modes, and 20 ADMM iterations. Columns compare CPU and CUDA, while rows compare one-prior fitting with exhaustive fitting over all 156 priors. Timings include problem construction, optimization, scaled-rotation projection, and parameter reconstruction, but exclude correspondence inference and JIT compilation.
SOPE test, stride 3 ( n=339,840 )
RealNOCS real_test ( n=14,077 )
Method
Input
Prior
F1@1% ↑
CD-L1(m) ↓
HD95(m) ↓
F1@1% ↑
CD-L1(m) ↓
HD95(m) ↓
PoinTr [ 14 ]
M-PC
–
0.0521
0.1181
0.2416
0.0277
0.0452
0.0809
SnowflakeNet [ 15 ]
M-PC
–
0.0498
0.0782
0.1721
0.0215
0.0509
0.1014
AdaPoinTr [ 16 ]
M-PC
–
0.0445
0.1045
0.1763
0.0146
0.0543
0.0867
DR-Pose † [ 37 ]
M-PC
mean
–
–
–
0.0524
0.0195
0.0232
ASM-6D w/o prior
ROI
–
0.1749
0.0114
0.0146
0.0516
0.0185
0.0199
TABLE V: Shape-completion results. M-PC : instance-mask segmented depth point cloud; ROI : RGB-D crop and box.
Fig. 6: Full-pipeline RealNOCS completion at the native 642 -point metric budget. All outputs are shown in a common ground-truth camera frame and scene scale. Point-cloud methods use the released Mask R-CNN partial cloud, whereas ASM-6D uses the object ROI without mask pixels. RGB-D colors are used only for visualization.
Fig. 7: Shape-conditioned pose ambiguity for one cup under three visibility conditions . Each point represents an independently sampled correspondence set after ASM fitting. Mollweide position and color encode rotation, while columns separate geometry-derived handle-free and handle-bearing completions.
Dataset / class
Top-1
Correct / total
RealNOCS (all)
73.7%
11884/16117
Bottle
47.0%
1295/2757
Bowl
89.0%
2109/2370
Camera
64.8%
1729/2669
Can
43.0%
1174/2728
Laptop
100.0%
2754/2754
TABLE VI: Exact canonical-class selection through exhaustive ASM fitting.
Fig. 8: Representative exact-class errors. Left: RealNOCS camera → handbag. Right: SOPE knife → fork. Each view shows the isolated RGB-D observation and selected incorrect ASM fit; the inset shows the ground-truth mesh for context.
Fig. 9: Tracking on the high-motion mug sequence. Rows show ground truth, FoundationPose (FP) with periodic re-registration, and ASM-6D over time. The comparison illustrates the temporal behavior of the evaluated tracking configurations under rapid object motion (mean translation speed: 0.197ms−1 , mean rotation speed: 88.2∘s−1 ).
Fig. 10: Qualitative object grasping experiments. In the tabletop scene, ASM-6D estimates the pose and shape of target objects among multiple surrounding objects, enabling grasping of the bottle and bowl.
Method
Trans. (cm) ↓
Rot. ( ∘ ) ↓
ADD (cm) ↓
Med.
P90
Med.
P90
Med.
ASM-6D
0.46
2.60
4.2
53.9
0.57
FP (native)
0.11
0.24
1.9
7.2
0.20
FP (30f reinit.)
0.13
1.16
2.7
179.6
0.23
TABLE VII: Tracking accuracy on HO3D, pooled over scored frames.
Method
Trans. (cm) ↓
Rot. ( ∘ ) ↓
ADD (cm) ↓
FPS ↑
Med.
P90
Med.
P90
Med.
Steady / Amort.
ASM-6D
1.45
2.74
12.3
35.4
1.56
28.3 / 26.4
FP (native)
63.60
83.80
144.4
165.2
62.12
64.0 / 55.3
FP (30f reinit.)
3.03
7.80
64.8
163.7
4.29
55.3 / 14.5
FP (60f reinit.)
3.06
11.14
72.8
163.1
4.47
55.0 / 22.5
FP (120f reinit.)
3.30
40.00
48.7
161.4
4.16
55.1 / 30.2
TABLE VIII: Tracking accuracy and throughput on the high-motion mug sequence. ∗ FP is FoundationPose [ 39 ]
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Configuration
AUC ↑
VUS ↑
IoU 25
IoU 50
IoU 75
5∘ /2cm
5∘ /5cm
10∘ /2cm
10∘ /5cm
A) Regression vs. flow matching, frozen H=1
Regression
27.87
11.58
0.93
4.38
6.81
10.88
16.98
Flow Matching
43.91
25.91
5.10
10.29
14.45
20.56
29.24
B) Hypothesis count, distilled model
H=1
47.94
30.07
7.11
14.67
20.54
26.70
37.73
Appendix
TABLE IX: Ablation study of ASM-6D.
Fig. 11: RGB-only input ablation. Top: representative paired RGB-D and RGB-only predictions. Bottom: predicted global depth across 50 objects compared with observed metric depth.
Category-level 6D pose estimation from a single RGB-D observation is inherently under-constrained, since partial visible geometry must be interpreted together with a canonical object structure before a stable pose can be determined. We present LEGAU, a unified framework that jointly predicts NOCS correspondence, object pose and size, and a canonical Semantic Gaussian Field. Rather than treating reconstruction as a detached auxiliary task, LEGAU uses the Gaussian field as a category-conditioned structural prior that participates in multimodal feature fusion and provides global guidance for local pose reasoning. Conditioned on a categorical text embedding, LEGAU processes RGB-D observations through a transformer-based fusion module that integrates visual, geometric, and category-level cues, decoding the NOCS map, pose and size information and the Gaussian-based object representation. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world benchmarks show that this coupled pose-shape formulation achieves strong performance in a single-model multi-category setting, with up to 22% on SOPE and competitive transfer to real-world data. These results highlight the benefit of jointly learning canonical correspondence, object shape, and pose alignment within a unified representation.
Hongli Xu, Zhaowei Lu, Junwen Huang +5
Technical University of Munich Munich, Germany · Munich Center for Machine Learning Munich, Germany · Siemens AG Munich, Germany +1
Category-level object pose estimation predicts the rotation, translation, and metric size of unseen instances within known categories. Many accurate RGB-D methods rely on external instance segmentation and crop-based pose estimation, introducing separate stages and object-dependent processing costs that hinder real-time inference. To bring accurate pose estimation into real time, we present \ours{}, an end-to-end trainable query-based RGB-D set predictor. It jointly detects and segments objects and estimates their \mbox{9-DoF} poses without explicit CAD-derived shape priors or a separately trained instance segmentor. Shared image and scene encoding avoids repeated per-object crop encoding. A query-conditioned geometry pathway associates observed 3D points and RGB features with object queries and incorporates shared scene context. Object-centric refinement uses the resulting point descriptors to update an explicit pose state through pose-conditioned cross-attention and recurrent residual corrections. On NOCS, \ours{} substantially improves on published RGB-D joint detection and pose estimation results. It achieves competitive performance compared with two-stage methods under all-object evaluation on REAL275 and HouseCat6D, while enabling real-time full-frame pose estimation at 31.8 FPS on an RTX~A6000. Project page: https://yopo-series.github.io/RYOPO-project-page/.
Hakjin Lee, Junghoon Seo, Jaehoon Sim
PIT IN Co., Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
6D pose estimation is a key task in computer vision and embodied AI, widely used in robotic manipulation, augmented reality, etc. Existing methods directly regress in a high-dimensional continuous space, facing two key challenges in category-level pose estimation: limited accuracy due to noise and local optima, and inefficient search over an infinite space that hinders real-time performance. This paper proposes Flow6D, a hierarchical flow matching framework with a two-stage discrete latent space localization-continuous pose regression strategy. Rotation and translation parameters are first discretized into bins, with a discrete flow matching model locking the latent space around the true pose to reduce search complexity. Then, by sampling in the latent space, a continuous flow matching model predicts local pose residuals to optimize the estimate and regress to an accurate pose. The framework also naturally extends to articulated objects, outperforming state-of-the-art methods on synthetic and real datasets with real-time inference at 70 FPS. Project website: https://flow6d.github.io/.
Mingyu Mei, Li Zhang, Zibo Dai +4
Zhejiang University · University of Science and Technology of China · Shanghai Jiao Tong University