Cross-parameterization and compatible remeshing of 3D models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it