MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2545100096 · doi:10.1111/cgf.13001

Retargeting 3D Objects and Scenes with a General Framework

2016· article· en· W2545100096 on OpenAlexaff
Chun‐Kai Huang, Yi‐Ling Chen, I‐Chao Shen, Bing‐Yu Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetargetingComputer scienceBounding overwatchObject (grammar)Computer visionProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceMinimum bounding boxSet (abstract data type)Seam carvingComputer graphics (images)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we introduce an interactive method suitable for retargeting both 3D objects and scenes. Initially, the input object or scene is decomposed into a collection of constituent components enclosed by corresponding control bounding volumes which capture the intra‐structures of the object or semantic grouping of objects in the 3D scene. The overall retargeting is accomplished through a constrained optimization by manipulating the control bounding volumes. Without inferring the intricate dependencies between the components, we define a minimal set of constraints that maintain the spatial arrangement and connectivity between the components to regularize the valid retargeting results. The default retargeting behavior can then be easily altered by additional semantic constraints imposed by users. This strategy makes the proposed method highly flexible to process a wide variety of 3D objects and scenes under an unified framework. In addition, the proposed method achieved more general structure‐preserving pattern synthesis in both object and scene levels. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by applying it to several complicated 3D objects and scenes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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