Projective analysis for 3D shape segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce projective analysis for semantic segmentation and labeling of 3D shapes. The analysis treats an input 3D shape as a collection of 2D projections, labels each projection by transferring knowledge from existing labeled images, and back-projects and fuses the labelings on the 3D shape. The image-space analysis involves matching projected binary images of 3D objects based on a novel bi-class Hausdorff distance . The distance is topology-aware by accounting for internal holes in the 2D figures and it is applied to piecewise-linearly warped object projections to compensate for part scaling and view discrepancies. Projective analysis simplifies the processing task by working in a lower-dimensional space, circumvents the requirement of having complete and well-modeled 3D shapes, and addresses the data challenge for 3D shape analysis by leveraging the massive available image data. A large and dense labeled set ensures that the labeling of a given projected image can be inferred from closely matched labeled images. We demonstrate semantic labeling of imperfect (e.g., incomplete or self-intersecting) 3D models which would be otherwise difficult to analyze without taking the projective analysis approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".