Partial shape matching is a crucial yet underexplored problem in 3D vision, with significant relevance to real-world scenarios where shapes are often only partially observed. Existing feature descriptors face difficulties in this setting, as traditional representations either struggle with the boundaries of partial shapes or heavily depend on the shape's spatial position. While existing approaches have employed DINO features for partial shape matching, these features are not inherently suited for handling partial observations. In this work, we propose a method to refine DINO features using LoRA-based self-supervised learning, enabling the generation of feature descriptors that are robust to partiality. Our features substantially improve performance on partial shape matching compared to traditional or vision foundation features. Additionally, when integrated into existing partial shape matching pipelines, we achieve state-of-the-art results on partial shape matching and left-right prediction benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Our Self-Supervised Training Pipeline: Given a full mesh X , we first generate a partial observation Y . After randomly rotating both shapes with different rotation matrices around the Y-axis, we render the partial and full shape from different perspectives with cameras C . For every camera ci∈C , we obtain an image IXi of the full shape, which is then passed through a frozen DINOv3 architecture with a LoRA module with rank r to extract pixel-wise features QXi . These are then backprojected on the shape and averaged to get vertex-wise features FX . Similarly, we proceed for the partial shape Y . Finally, we use the Geodesic-Aware PointInfoNCE contrastive loss to align corresponding vertices of both shapes and separate all others based on geodesic distance. In our experiments we use 4 views for the partial and 9 views for the full shape.
Type
Dataset
WKS
HKS
Diff3f
DINOv2
DINOv3
Trained on
GeoLoRA
P2F
BeCoS [ 23 ]
58.35
69.50
25.61
21.54
19.95
BeCoS
5.57
Shrec16 Cuts [ 16 ]
62.08
53.32
28.01
26.58
21.25
BeCoS *
10.86
Shrec16 Holes [ 16 ]
50.33
65.56
26.67
20.22
20.22
BeCoS *
9.70
Pfaust-M [ 8 ]
50.28
52.19
12.60
11.38
11.36
Faust
2.88
Pfaust-H [ 8 ]
54.75
60.83
19.32
17.47
13.82
Faust
3.33
P2P
BeCoS [ 23 ]
41.35
40.48
19.45
17.43
16.84
BeCoS
6.72
Table 1: Improvement of Feature Quality Through Our Self-Supervised Pipeline: We show that with GeoLoRA we can improve the feature quality on all partial datasets in terms of the mean geodesic error ( ×100 ). BeCoS * indicates BeCoS without Shrec16 data.
Figure 3: Qualitative Results of Feature Quality: We show colour-coded correspondences based on the features computed with different feature extractors. GeoLoRA exhibits improved performance, especially in left-right predictions.
Geo Err ( ↓ )
Features
ULRSSM [ 12 ]
DPFM [ 3 ]
BeCoS
DINOv3
26.97 (26.19)
23.16
GeoLoRA
11.62 (11.54)
13.38
Shrec16Cuts
DINOv3
5.94 (4.30)
10.78
GeoLoRA
3.01 (1.97)
6.57
Shrec16Holes
DINOv3
12.41 (9.66)
10.41
GeoLoRA
8.07 (6.88)
7.38
Table 2: Partial-to-Full Shape Matching with GeoLoRA: We show that we can improve the downstream task performance of partial-to-full shape matching with GeoLoRA in comparison to DINOv3 features in terms of mean geodesic error ( ×100 ). The numbers in brackets of ULRSSM show the geodesic error after test-time adaptation.
Features
EchoMatch [ 62 ]
DPFM [ 3 ]
Err
mIoU
Err
mIoU
BeCoS
DINOv3
9.74
67.07
9.83
49.80
GeoLoRA
5.55
71.27
8.20
56.04
Psmal
DINOv3
5.56
82.75
11.25
73.25
GeoLoRA
4.33
85.41
8.91
78.95
CP2P24
DINOv3
2.97
87.02
3.89
71.55
Table 3: Partial-to-Partial Shape Matching with GeoLoRA: We demonstrate that our GeoLoRA features achieve better downstream partial-to-partial shape matching performance than DINOv3, as measured by geodesic error ( ×100 ) and Intersection over Union (IoU).
Figure 4: Qualitative Results of Partial-to-Full Shape Matching Methods: We show one qualitative result of partial-to-full shape matching on the Shrec16 Cuts dataset. We can see improvement in the quality of the matching, especially at the arm with GeoLoRA features.
16
25
36
49
64
100
Geo Err
25.47
20.80
21.48
20.09
20.29
20.00
Time(s)
1.52
2.35
3.36
4.59
6.01
9.47
Table 4: Number of Views N with Frozen DINOv3: With an increasing number of views, the time increases linearly, while the geodesic error ( ×100 ) already saturates earlier. Thus, we choose 49 views for our experiments.
PointInfoNCE
GeoLoRA
Err ( ↓ )
11.29
5.89
Table 5: PointInfoNCE vs GeoLoRA: We show that our loss formulation decreases the geodesic error ( ×100 ) significantly compared to the widely used PointInfoNCE loss.
DINOv3
PointInfoNCE
GeoLoRA
Acc ( ↑ )
70.45
84.09
91.42
Table 6: Chirality Score for BeCoS Partial Shapes: We show that we can improve the left-right prediction of [ 58 ] with GeoLoRA in terms of accuracy.
Figure 5: Qualitative Results of Left-Right Prediction: GeoLoRA shows better chirality prediction than DINOv3 (shapes from BeCoS ).
Figure 6: Real-World Scan: We match a real-world partial scan on a template human. DINOv3 struggles to characterise incomplete geometry, while GeoLoRA shows robust performance.
Symbol
Description
X=(VX,TX)
3D Full Shape
VX
Vertices of shape X
TX
Triangles of shape X
Y=(VY,TY)
3D Partial Shape, VY⊂VX , TY⊂TX
ΠYX
Correspondence from partial to full shape
C=(c1,...,cN)
Set of all cameras
Table 7: Overview of Symbols
r / α
4/8
8/16
16/32
Geo Error ( ↓ )
8.14
6.56
5.89
Table 8: LoRA Hyperparameter Ablation: We observe the best results with rank r=16 and α=32 .
DINOv2
DINOv3
Diff3f
GeoLoRA
Time [s] ( ↓ )
4.72
4.45
360.45
4.59
Table 9: Inference Time Comparison: While DINOv2, DINOv3 and GeoLoRA have similar runtime during inference, Diff3f’s runtime is significantly increased due to the need to additionally run inference with Stable Diffusion.
PFAUST
DINOv3-B
GeoLoRA-B
DINOv3-L
GeoLoRA-L
-M
11.36
2.88
11.40
2.43
-H
13.82
3.33
12.50
2.65
Table 10: Performance of Different Backbone Scales: We show that with a larger backbone we do not gain significant improvement in terms of geodesic error.
Geo Error (↓)
XYZ
Ours
BeCoS
40.46 (40.18)
11.62 (11.54)
Shrec16Cuts
7.04 (3.2)
3.01 (1.97)
Shrec16 Holes
13.75 (8.2)
8.07 (6.88)
Pfaust-M
7.65 (7.49)
1.61 (1.61)
Pfaust-H
9.39 (9.24)
2.29 (2.19)
Table 11: Comparison of XYZ features vs GeoLoRA features: We compare the geodesic error (×100) on different partial-to-full datasets with ULRSSM. On all datasets, our features outperform the originally used XYZ features. The numbers in brackets “ () ” indicate geodesic error results after test-time adaptation [ 12 ] .
Original
Ours
Chirality Accuracy ( ↑ )
57.40
91.42
Table 12: Comparison to DINOv2 + Stable Diffusion Features: We compare the chirality (left-right) accuracy of the features used in [ 58 ] to our GeoLoRA features. Our method’s features show higher accuracy.
Figure 7: Failure Cases: We show two failure cases of our method. The method primarily struggles with shapes in challenging poses, where the shapes are not positioned upright.
Figure 8: Additional Results on Real-World Statues from [ 1 ] : DINOv3 fails to find good correspondences between the partial statues and the full template shape, where GeoLoRA finds reasonably dense correspondences.
Figure 9: 2D Keypoint Matching: We show examples for keypoint matching on the SPair-71k [ 42 ] dataset. Our method shows superior matching results in these examples.
Figure 10: 3D Keypoint Matching: Our method can be used for 3D keypoint matching. We show examples of the BeCoS test set.
Figure 11: Qualitative Results of Feature Quality: We show colour-coded correspondences based on the features computed with different feature extractors. GeoLoRA exhibits improved performance, especially in left-right and front-back predictions.
Figure 12: More Qualitative Results: We show more qualitative results of our partial-to-full features.
Figure 13: Qualitative Results of Partial-to-Partial Matching: We show colour-coded correspondences for partial-to-partial shape matching methods. We compare DINOv3 features with GeoLoRA features. The red area indicates points that are predicted not to be in the overlapping region. On the BeCoS dataset and the Psmal dataset, we demonstrate improved performance with GeoLoRA features compared to DINOv3 features. On CP2P24 we observe similar matching quality.
Figure 14: Qualitative Results of Partial-to-Full Shape Matching Methods: We show two more examples of partial-to-full shape matching on the Pfaust-H and Shrec16 Holes dataset. We can see improved matching quality with our GeoLoRA features, especially in the extremities of the shapes, such as the left arm of the human and the legs of the horse.
While data-driven 3D shape correspondence estimation has recently seen substantial progress, robust matching under partial observations and strong non-isometric deformations remains challenging. Existing learning-based approaches often rely on hand-crafted descriptors or template-based representations, whereas recent generative models over functional maps suffer from high inference cost, limited interpretability, and poor generalisation to partial shapes. In response to these limitations, this paper introduces TokenMatch, a new transformer-based unified model for estimating 3D shape correspondences. Our feed-forward approach trained exclusively on BeCoS, a challenging non-isometric partial-to-partial shape-matching dataset, can generalise to matching full shapes without retraining or fine-tuning. TokenMatch uses self- and cross-attention mechanisms to efficiently learn patch-level and point-level relations as well as dense correspondences between shape pairs. Our core insight is that meshes can be adaptively tokenised into patches using shape curvature guidance, enabling effective learning of shape-specific geometric descriptors for correspondence estimation. We evaluate TokenMatch on standard benchmarks for partial and full shape matching, including CP2P, PSMAL, BeCoS, FAUST, SCAPE, and SHREC'19. Our method achieves consistently high performance, in most cases outperforming existing methods for partial and full shape matching in the mean geodesic error and intersection-over-union metrics, while also running faster at sub-second inference speeds.
Adeela Islam, Zorah Lähner, Vittorio Murino +1
1Italian Institute of Technology · University of Genoa · 6Max Planck Institute for Informatics, SIC +4
3D shape completion from partial scans remains challenging for unseen categories and noisy real-world observations, where geometry alone is often insufficient for inferring missing structure. We present DinoComplete, a deterministic and efficient shape completion framework that augments geometric reconstruction with voxel-aligned semantic priors distilled from DINO features. First, we construct multi-view DINO feature volumes aligned with ShapeNet data and train a student network to predict dense semantic features directly from incomplete shapes. These predicted features capture global structure and part-aware semantic context while remaining aligned with the underlying geometry. We then integrate these distilled features into a completion network, where geometric and semantic voxel representations are fused through voxel state-space modeling. To enable efficient long-range reasoning without sacrificing resolution, we introduce a multi-scale voxel Mamba module that refines the fused features by combining full-grid and chunk-wise sequence modeling. Experiments on unseen ShapeNet categories and ScanNet objects show that DinoComplete achieves stronger completion quality than prior deterministic and generative based completion methods while using fewer parameters, requiring lower memory, and achieving faster inference. Our results demonstrate that distilling semantic priors from visual foundation models improves generalization and robustness in 3D shape completion.
Furkan Mert Algan, Eckehard Steinbach
Chair of Media Technology · Munich Institute of Robotics and Machine Intelligence · School of Computation Information and Technology, Technical University of Munich
Visual features extracted from vision models like DINOv2 or Stable Diffusion enable high quality semantic correspondence between images. However, such features exhibit documented limitations that hinder accurate correspondence estimation such as the inability to disambiguate the left from right for categories exhibiting symmetries or repeated parts. Previous attempts to improve these features rely on using supervised data such as annotated keypoint pairs or camera pose information, or make restrictive topological assumptions, such as modelling the object of interest as a 3D sphere. We introduce a new self-supervised approach that allows us to learn features for topologically complex object categories using a simple prior. Instead of relying on an expensive instance-level analysis by synthesis pipeline, our approach makes use of contrastive learning and distribution matching at the global dataset-level to learn the coarse shape and appearance of a category. Combined with additional geometric losses, this enables us to replicate the global and local statistics of visual features which match those that are extracted from real images. Quantitative results are presented across several challenging object categories, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach.