3d-multimodal-eval

name	3d-multimodal-eval
description	Evaluates a 3D large multimodal model's ability to understand spatial scenes and generate accurate text responses. It probes free-form question answering about 3D environments and object-centric dense captioning grounded in 3D coordinates. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ScanQA, SQA3D, ScanRefer, Nr3D, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports CiDEr.
metadata	{"skill_kind":"dataset_eval","source_arxiv":2602.23153,"bibtex_key":"mei2026efficient","confidence":"high"}

3d-multimodal-eval

Efficient Encoder-Free Fourier-based 3D Large Multimodal Model — Guofeng Mei et al. (arXiv:2602.23153, 2026)

What this evaluates

Evaluates a 3D large multimodal model's ability to understand spatial scenes and generate accurate text responses. It probes free-form question answering about 3D environments and object-centric dense captioning grounded in 3D coordinates.

Datasets

• ScanQA — total 41400; splits: val (-1)
• SQA3D — total 33400; splits: test (-1)
• ScanRefer — total ?; splits: test (-1)
• Nr3D — total ?; splits: test (-1)

Metrics

• CiDEr (primary) — range: percent
  • Consensus-based Image Description Evaluation. Computes n-gram similarity between generated and reference captions using IDF weighting to penalize common words.
• BLEU-4 — range: percent
  • Bilingual Evaluation Understudy. Measures n-gram precision up to 4-grams with a brevity penalty.
• METEOR — range: percent
  • Metric for Evaluation of Translation with Explicit ORdering. Matches words using synonymy, stemming, and exact matching, then computes harmonic mean of precision and recall.
• ROUGE-L — range: percent
  • Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation. Measures the longest common subsequence between generated and reference text.
• EM@1 — range: [0, 1]
  • Exact Match at top-1. Returns 1 if the generated answer exactly matches the reference answer, 0 otherwise. Averaged over the dataset.
• m@kIoU — range: percent
  • For dense captioning, evaluates localization quality by computing metric m (CiDEr, BLEU-4, METEOR, or ROUGE-L) only for predictions with Intersection over Union (IoU) ≥ k (typically 0.5).

Input / output format

Input: Text prompt/question paired with a 3D point cloud scene (uniformly sampled to 50k points, aggregated into 256 superpoint tokens, and processed via an FFT enhancer).

Output: Free-form natural language text (answers or object descriptions).

Scoring recipe

def compute_metrics(predictions, references):
    bleu4 = nltk.translate.bleu_score.corpus_bleu(references, predictions, weights=(0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25))
    meteor = compute_meteor(references, predictions)
    rouge_l = compute_rouge_l(references, predictions)
    cider = compute_cider(references, predictions)
    em1 = sum(1 for p, r in zip(predictions, references) if p.strip() == r.strip()) / len(predictions)
    return {'BLEU-4': bleu4, 'METEOR': meteor, 'ROUGE-L': rouge_l, 'CiDEr': cider, 'EM@1': em1}

Common pitfalls

• Confusing the IoU threshold k in m@kIoU for dense captioning (typically 0.5).
• Failing to distinguish between evaluation with an external segmenter (Mask3D) vs. graph-based proposals.
• Mixing up ScanQA (validation split) and SQA3D (test split) results.
• Reporting #Params and FLOPs as performance metrics rather than efficiency/compute metrics.

Evidence (verbatim from paper)

We use the abbreviations C, B-4, M and R for CiDEr, BLEU-4, METEOR, and Rouge-L, respectively. We report #Params, indicating the number of parameters activated for 3D scene tokenization, and FLOP as an efficiency measure.

Citation

@misc{mei2026efficient,
  title={Efficient Encoder-Free Fourier-based 3D Large Multimodal Model},
  author={Guofeng Mei et al.},
  year={2026},
  note={arXiv:2602.23153}
}

• arXiv: 2602.23153