MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962780613 · doi:10.1145/3272127.3275008

SCORES

2018· article· en· W2962780613 on OpenAlexaff
Chenyang Zhu, Kai Xu, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Renjiao Yi, Hao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Encoding (memory)SubstructureCode (set theory)AlgorithmArtificial neural networkRange (aeronautics)Artificial intelligenceAutoencoderPattern recognition (psychology)Topology (electrical circuits)Set (abstract data type)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce SCORES, a recursive neural network for shape composition. Our network takes as input sets of parts from two or more source 3D shapes and a rough initial placement of the parts. It outputs an optimized part structure for the composed shape, leading to high-quality geometry construction. A unique feature of our composition network is that it is not merely learning how to connect parts. Our goal is to produce a coherent and plausible 3D shape, despite large incompatibilities among the input parts. The network may significantly alter the geometry and structure of the input parts and synthesize a novel shape structure based on the inputs, while adding or removing parts to minimize a structure plausibility loss. We design SCORES as a recursive autoencoder network. During encoding, the input parts are recursively grouped to generate a root code. During synthesis, the root code is decoded, recursively, to produce a new, coherent part assembly. Assembled shape structures may be novel, with little global resemblance to training exemplars, yet have plausible substructures. SCORES therefore learns a hierarchical substructure shape prior based on per-node losses. It is trained on structured shapes from ShapeNet, and is applied iteratively to reduce the plausibility loss. We show results of shape composition from multiple sources over different categories of man-made shapes and compare with state-of-the-art alternatives, demonstrating that our network can significantly expand the range of composable shapes for assembly-based modeling.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.029

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations53
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207