MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1940445245 · doi:10.5220/0004674801120119

Automatic Method for Sharp Feature Extraction from 3D Data of Man-made Objects

2014· article· en· W1940445245 on OpenAlexaff
Trung-Thien Tran, Van-Toan Cao, Sarah Ali, Denis Laurendeau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudHistogramComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)CentroidPolygon meshArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionComputer visionNoise (video)SegmentationNormalPoint (geometry)AlgorithmMathematicsSurface (topology)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel algorithm is proposed for extracting sharp features automatically from scanned 3D data of man-made CAD-like objects. The input of our method consists of a mesh or an unstructured point cloud that is captured on the object surface. First, the vector between a given point and the centroid of its neighborhood at a given scale is projected on the normal vector and called the ‘projected distance’ at this point. This projected distance is calculated for every data point. In a second stage, Otsu's method is applied to the histogram of the projected distances in order to select the optimal threshold value, which is used to detect potential sharp features at a single scale. These two stages are applied iteratively with the other incremental scales. Finally, points recorded as potential features at every scale are marked as valid sharp features. The method has many advantages over existing methods such as intrinsic simplicity, automatic selection of threshold value, accurate and robust detection of sharp features on various objects. To demonstrate the robustness of the method, it is applied on both synthetic and real 3D data of point clouds and meshes with different noise levels.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207