Deformation-driven shape correspondence via shape recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many approaches to shape comparison and recognition start by establishing a shape correspondence. We "turn the table" and show that quality shape correspondences can be obtained by performing many shape recognition tasks. What is more, the method we develop computes a fine-grained, topology-varying part correspondence between two 3D shapes where the core evaluation mechanism only recognizes shapes globally. This is made possible by casting the part correspondence problem in a deformation-driven framework and relying on a data-driven "deformation energy" which rates visual similarity between deformed shapes and models from a shape repository. Our basic premise is that if a correspondence between two chairs (or airplanes, bicycles, etc.) is correct, then a reasonable deformation between the two chairs anchored on the correspondence ought to produce plausible , "chair-like" in-between shapes. Given two 3D shapes belonging to the same category, we perform a top-down, hierarchical search for part correspondences. For a candidate correspondence at each level of the search hierarchy, we deform one input shape into the other, while respecting the correspondence, and rate the correspondence based on how well the resulting deformed shapes resemble other shapes from ShapeNet belonging to the same category as the inputs. The resemblance, i.e., plausibility, is measured by comparing multi-view depth images over category-specific features learned for the various shape categories. We demonstrate clear improvements over state-of-the-art approaches through tests covering extensive sets of man-made models with rich geometric and topological variations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".