Structured Regularization of Functional Map Computations
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 We consider the problem of non‐rigid shape matching using the functional map framework. Specifically, we analyze a commonly used approach for regularizing functional maps, which consists in penalizing the failure of the unknown map to commute with the Laplace‐Beltrami operators on the source and target shapes. We show that this approach has certain undesirable fundamental theoretical limitations, and can be undefined even for trivial maps in the smooth setting. Instead we propose a novel, theoretically well‐justified approach for regularizing functional maps, by using the notion of the resolvent of the Laplacian operator. In addition, we provide a natural one‐parameter family of regularizers, that can be easily tuned depending on the expected approximate isometry of the input shape pair. We show on a wide range of shape correspondence scenarios that our novel regularization leads to an improvement in the quality of the estimated functional, and ultimately pointwise correspondences before and after commonly‐used refinement techniques.
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