Learning Generative Models of 3D Structures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 3D models of objects and scenes are critical to many academic disciplines and industrial applications. Of particular interest is the emerging opportunity for 3D graphics to serve artificial intelligence: computer vision systems can benefit from synthetically‐generated training data rendered from virtual 3D scenes, and robots can be trained to navigate in and interact with real‐world environments by first acquiring skills in simulated ones. One of the most promising ways to achieve this is by learning and applying generative models of 3D content: computer programs that can synthesize new 3D shapes and scenes. To allow users to edit and manipulate the synthesized 3D content to achieve their goals, the generative model should also be structure‐aware : it should express 3D shapes and scenes using abstractions that allow manipulation of their high‐level structure. This state‐of‐the‐art report surveys historical work and recent progress on learning structure‐aware generative models of 3D shapes and scenes. We present fundamental representations of 3D shape and scene geometry and structures, describe prominent methodologies including probabilistic models, deep generative models, program synthesis, and neural networks for structured data, and cover many recent methods for structure‐aware synthesis of 3D shapes and indoor 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it