MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903555784 · doi:10.1145/3272127.3275024

Semantic object reconstruction via casual handheld scanning

2018· article· en· W2903555784 on OpenAlexaff
Ruizhen Hu, Cheng Wen, Oliver van Kaick, Luanmin Chen, Di Lin, Daniel Cohen‐Or, Hui Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Computer visionMobile deviceArtificial neural networkDeep learningSegmentationKey (lock)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a learning-based method to reconstruct objects acquired in a casual handheld scanning setting with a depth camera. Our method is based on two core components. First, a deep network that provides a semantic segmentation and labeling of the frames of an input RGBD sequence. Second, an alignment and reconstruction method that employs the semantic labeling to reconstruct the acquired object from the frames. We demonstrate that the use of a semantic labeling improves the reconstructions of the objects, when compared to methods that use only the depth information of the frames. Moreover, since training a deep network requires a large amount of labeled data, a key contribution of our work is an active self-learning framework to simplify the creation of the training data. Specifically, we iteratively predict the labeling of frames with the neural network, reconstruct the object from the labeled frames, and evaluate the confidence of the labeling, to incrementally train the neural network while requiring only a small amount of user-provided annotations. We show that this method enables the creation of data for training a neural network with high accuracy, while requiring only little manual effort.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207