Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Feature‐driven analysis forms the basis of many shape processing tasks, where detected feature points are characterized by local shape descriptors. Such descriptors have so far been defined to capture regions of interest centred at individual points. Using such regions to compare feature points can be problematic when performing partial shape matching, because the region of interest is typically defined as an isotropic neighbourhood around a point, which does not adapt to the geometry of the shape parts. We introduce the bilateral map, a local shape descriptor whose region of interest is defined by two feature points. Compared to the classical descriptor definition using a single point, the bilateral approach exploits the use of a second point to place more constraints on the selection of the spatial context for feature analysis. This leads to a descriptor where the shape of the region of interest adapts to the context of the two points, making it more refined for shape matching. In particular, we show that our new descriptor is more effective for partial matching, because potentially extraneous regions of the models are selectively ignored owing to the adaptive nature of the bilateral map. This property also renders the bilateral map partially insensitive to topological changes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the bilateral map for partial matching via several correspondence and retrieval experiments and evaluate the results both qualitatively and quantitatively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".