Functionality Representations and Applications for Shape Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A central goal of computer graphics is to provide tools for designing and simulating real or imagined artifacts. An understanding of functionality is important in enabling such modeling tools. Given that the majority of man‐made artifacts are designed to serve a certain function, the functionality of objects is often reflected by their geometry, the way that they are organized in an environment, and their interaction with other objects or agents. Thus, in recent years, a variety of methods in shape analysis have been developed to extract functional information about objects and scenes from these different types of cues. In this report, we discuss recent developments that incorporate functionality aspects into the analysis of 3D shapes and scenes. We provide a summary of the state‐of‐the‐art in this area, including a discussion of key ideas and an organized review of the relevant literature. More specifically, the report is structured around a general definition of functionality from which we derive criteria for classifying the body of prior work. This definition also facilitates a comparative view of methods for functionality analysis. We focus on studying the inference of functionality from a geometric perspective, and pose functionality analysis as a process involving both the geometry and interactions of a functional entity. In addition, we discuss a variety of applications that benefit from an analysis of functionality, and conclude the report with a discussion of current challenges and potential future works.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".