Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

DenseMatcher: Learning 3D Semantic Correspondence for Category-Level Manipulation from a Single Demo

About

Dense 3D correspondence can enhance robotic manipulation by enabling the generalization of spatial, functional, and dynamic information from one object to an unseen counterpart. Compared to shape correspondence, semantic correspondence is more effective in generalizing across different object categories. To this end, we present DenseMatcher, a method capable of computing 3D correspondences between in-the-wild objects that share similar structures. DenseMatcher first computes vertex features by projecting multiview 2D features onto meshes and refining them with a 3D network, and subsequently finds dense correspondences with the obtained features using functional map. In addition, we craft the first 3D matching dataset that contains colored object meshes across diverse categories. In our experiments, we show that DenseMatcher significantly outperforms prior 3D matching baselines by 43.5%. We demonstrate the downstream effectiveness of DenseMatcher in (i) robotic manipulation, where it achieves cross-instance and cross-category generalization on long-horizon complex manipulation tasks from observing only one demo; (ii) zero-shot color mapping between digital assets, where appearance can be transferred between different objects with relatable geometry.

Junzhe Zhu, Yuanchen Ju, Junyi Zhang, Muhan Wang, Zhecheng Yuan, Kaizhe Hu, Huazhe Xu• 2024

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
3D Shape CorrespondenceFAUST remeshed (test)
Mean Geodesic Error (x100)1.6
65
Non-isometric 3D shape matchingSMAL
Mean Geodesic Error0.047
58
Shape correspondence estimationTOPKIDS
Geodesic Error (x100)6.2
55
Shape MatchingSCAPE remeshed (test)
Mean Geodesic Error (x100)2
46
Near-isometric shape matchingSCAPE (test)
Mean Geodesic Error0.02
42
Shape MatchingSHREC19 remeshed (test)
Mean Geodesic Error0.031
37
Inter-class shape matchingSNIS (test)
Average Geodesic Error0.28
14
Non-isometric Shape MatchingTOPKIDS non-isometric (test)
Average Geodesic Error6.2
11
Near-isometric shape matchingSHREC19 near-isometric (test)
Average Geodesic Error0.031
10
Near-isometric shape matchingFAUST near-isometric (test)
Average Geodesic Error (x100)1.6
10
Showing 10 of 19 rows

Other info

Follow for update