Cross-parameterization and compatible remeshing of 3D models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many geometry processing applications, such as morphing, shape blending, transfer of texture or material properties, and fitting template meshes to scan data, require a bijective mapping between two or more models. This mapping, or cross-parameterization , typically needs to preserve the shape and features of the parameterized models, mapping legs to legs, ears to ears, and so on. Most of the applications also require the models to be represented by compatible meshes, i.e. meshes with identical connectivity, based on the cross-parameterization. In this paper we introduce novel methods for shape preserving cross-parameterization and compatible remeshing. Our cross-parameterization method computes a low-distortion bijective mapping between models that satisfies user prescribed constraints. Using this mapping, the remeshing algorithm preserves the user-defined feature vertex correspondence and the shape correlation between the models. The remeshing algorithm generates output meshes with significantly fewer elements compared to previous techniques, while accurately approximating the input geometry. As demonstrated by the examples, the compatible meshes we construct are ideally suitable for morphing and other geometry processing applications.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".