Densely sampled local visual features on 3D mesh for retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Local Depth-SIFT (LD-SIFT) algorithm by Darom, et al. [2] captures 3D geometrical features locally at interest points detected on a densely-sampled, manifold mesh representation of the 3D shape. The LD-SIFT has shown good retrieval accuracy for 3D models defined as densely sampled manifold mesh. However, it has two shortcomings. The LD-SIFT requires the input mesh to be densely and evenly sampled. Furthermore, the LD-SIFT can't handle 3D models defined as a set of multiple connected components or a polygon soup. This paper proposes two extensions to the LD-SIFT to alleviate these weaknesses. First extension shuns interest point detection, and employs dense sampling on the mesh. Second extension employs remeshing by dense sample points followed by interest point detection a la LD-SIFT Experiments using three different benchmark databases showed that the proposed algorithms significantly outperform the LD-SIFT in terms of retrieval accuracy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".