4D Reconstruction of Blooming Flowers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Flower blooming is a beautiful phenomenon in nature as flowers open in an intricate and complex manner whereas petals bend, stretch and twist under various deformations. Flower petals are typically thin structures arranged in tight configurations with heavy self‐occlusions. Thus, capturing and reconstructing spatially and temporally coherent sequences of blooming flowers is highly challenging. Early in the process only exterior petals are visible and thus interior parts will be completely missing in the captured data. Utilizing commercially available 3D scanners, we capture the visible parts of blooming flowers into a sequence of 3D point clouds. We reconstruct the flower geometry and deformation over time using a template‐based dynamic tracking algorithm. To track and model interior petals hidden in early stages of the blooming process, we employ an adaptively constrained optimization. Flower characteristics are exploited to track petals both forward and backward in time. Our methods allow us to faithfully reconstruct the flower blooming process of different species. In addition, we provide comparisons with state‐of‐the‐art physical simulation‐based approaches and evaluate our approach by using photos of captured real flowers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".