MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293183540 · doi:10.1145/2866570

Intrinsic Girth Function for Shape Processing

2016· article· en· W2293183540 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shiqing Xin, Wenping Wang, Shuangmin Chen, Jieyu Zhao, Zhenyu Shu

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMcGill University
KeywordsGeodesicSurface (topology)Invariant (physics)Computer graphicsMathematicsIsometry (Riemannian geometry)Shape analysis (program analysis)Computer scienceFunction (biology)Feature (linguistics)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceTopology (electrical circuits)GeometryCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shape description and feature detection are fundamental problems in computer graphics and geometric modeling. Among many existing techniques, those based on geodesic distance have proven effective in providing intrinsic and discriminative shape descriptors. In this article we introduce a new intrinsic function for a three-dimensional (3D) shape and use it for shape description and geometric feature detection. Specifically, we introduce the intrinsic girth function (IGF) defined on a 2D closed surface. For a point p on the surface, the value of the IGF at p is the length of the shortest nonzero geodesic path starting and ending at p . The IGF is invariant under isometry, insensitive to mesh tessellations, and robust to surface noise. We propose a fast method for computing the IGF and discuss its applications to shape retrieval and detecting tips, tubes, and plates that are constituent parts of 3D objects.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207