Upright orientation of man-made objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans usually associate an upright orientation with objects, placing them in a way that they are most commonly seen in our surroundings. While it is an open challenge to recover the functionality of a shape from its geometry alone, this paper shows that it is often possible to infer its upright orientation by analyzing its geometry. Our key idea is to reduce the two-dimensional (spherical) orientation space to a small set of orientation candidates using functionality-related geometric properties of the object, and then determine the best orientation using an assessment function of several functional geometric attributes defined with respect to each candidate. Specifically we focus on obtaining the upright orientation for man-made objects that typically stand on some flat surface (ground, floor, table, etc.), which include the vast majority of objects in our everyday surroundings. For these types of models orientation candidates can be defined according to static equilibrium. For each candidate, we introduce a set of discriminative attributes linking shape to function. We learn an assessment function of these attributes from a training set using a combination of Random Forest classifier and Support Vector Machine classifier. Experiments demonstrate that our method generalizes well and achieves about 90% prediction accuracy for both a 10-fold cross-validation over the training set and a validation with an independent test set.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".