3D Skeletons: A State‐of‐the‐Art Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given a shape, a skeleton is a thin centered structure which jointly describes the topology and the geometry of the shape. Skeletons provide an alternative to classical boundary or volumetric representations, which is especially effective for applications where one needs to reason about, and manipulate, the structure of a shape. These skeleton properties make them powerful tools for many types of shape analysis and processing tasks. For a given shape, several skeleton types can be defined, each having its own properties, advantages, and drawbacks. Similarly, a large number of methods exist to compute a given skeleton type, each having its own requirements, advantages, and limitations. While using skeletons for two‐dimensional (2D) shapes is a relatively well covered area, developments in the skeletonization of three‐dimensional (3D) shapes make these tasks challenging for both researchers and practitioners. This survey presents an overview of 3D shape skeletonization. We start by presenting the definition and properties of various types of 3D skeletons. We propose a taxonomy of 3D skeletons which allows us to further analyze and compare them with respect to their properties. We next overview methods and techniques used to compute all described 3D skeleton types, and discuss their assumptions, advantages, and limitations. Finally, we describe several applications of 3D skeletons, which illustrate their added value for different shape analysis and processing tasks.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.012 |
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".