Multi‐objective shape segmentation and labeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Shape segmentations designed for different applications show significant variation in the composition of their parts. In this paper, we introduce the segmentation and labeling of shape based on the simultaneous optimization of multiple heterogenous objectives that capture application‐specific segmentation criteria. We present a number of efficient objective functions that capture useful shape adjectives (compact, flat, narrow, perpendicular, etc.) Segmentation descriptions within our framework combine multiple such objective functions with optional labels to define each part. The optimization problem is simplified by proposing weighted Voronoi partitioning as a compact and continuous parametrization of spatially embedded shape segmentations. Separation of spatially close but geodesically distant parts is made possible using multi‐dimensional scaling prior to Voronoi partitioning. Optimization begins with an initial segmentation found using the centroids of a k‐means clustering of surface elements. This partition is automatically labeled to optimize heterogeneous part objectives and the Voronoi centers and their weights optimized using Generalized Pattern Search. We illustrate our framework using several diverse segmentation applications: consistent segmentations with semantic labels, bounding volume hierarchies for path tracing, and automatic rig and clothing transfer between animation characters.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".