MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509413994 · doi:10.1111/cgf.12976

Learning 3D Scene Synthesis from Annotated RGB‐D Images

2016· article· en· W2509413994 on OpenAlexafffund
Zeinab Sadeghipour Kermani, Zuwei Liao, Ping Tan, Hao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceRGB color modelProbabilistic logicComputer visionTask (project management)ControllabilityScale (ratio)Pattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a data‐driven method for synthesizing 3D indoor scenes by inserting objects progressively into an initial, possibly, empty scene. Instead of relying on few hundreds of hand‐crafted 3D scenes, we take advantage of existing large‐scale annotated RGB‐D datasets, in particular, the SUN RGB‐D database consisting of 10,000+ depth images of real scenes, to form the prior knowledge for our synthesis task. Our object insertion scheme follows a co‐occurrence model and an arrangement model, both learned from the SUN dataset. The former elects a highly probable combination of object categories along with the number of instances per category while a plausible placement is defined by the latter model. Compared to previous works on probabilistic learning for object placement, we make two contributions. First, we learn various classes of higher‐order object‐object relations including symmetry, distinct orientation, and proximity from the database. These relations effectively enable considering objects in semantically formed groups rather than by individuals. Second, while our algorithm inserts objects one at a time, it attains holistic plausibility of the whole current scene while offering controllability through progressive synthesis. We conducted several user studies to compare our scene synthesis performance to results obtained by manual synthesis, state‐of‐the‐art object placement schemes, and variations of parameter settings for the arrangement model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207