MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deformation‐Driven Shape Correspondence

2008· article· en· W1969076082 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon meshComputer scienceTree traversalShape analysis (program analysis)Deformation (meteorology)Distortion (music)Artificial intelligenceMatching (statistics)Correspondence problemFree-form deformationFeature (linguistics)Scale (ratio)AlgorithmComputer visionMathematicsComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Non‐rigid 3D shape correspondence is a fundamental and difficult problem. Most applications which require a correspondence rely on manually selected markers. Without user assistance, the performances of existing automatic correspondence methods depend strongly on a good initial shape alignment or shape prior, and they generally do not tolerate large shape variations. We present an automatic feature correspondence algorithm capable of handling large, non‐rigid shape variations, as well as partial matching. This is made possible by leveraging the power of state‐of‐the‐art mesh deformation techniques and relying on a combinatorial tree traversal for correspondence search. The search is deformation‐driven, prioritized by a self‐distortion energy measured on meshes deformed according to a given correspondence. We demonstrate the ability of our approach to naturally match shapes which differ in pose, local scale, part decomposition, and geometric detail through numerous examples.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.184 · 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