MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968928303 · doi:10.1109/iccv.2019.00827

Geometric Disentanglement for Generative Latent Shape Models

2019· preprint· en· W2968928303 on OpenAlexafffund
Tristan Aumentado‐Armstrong, Stavros Tsogkas, Allan Jepson, Sven Dickinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSamsung
KeywordsAutoencoderComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceGenerative modelGenerative grammarJacobian matrix and determinantLatent variableEncoding (memory)Space (punctuation)Pattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningArtificial neural networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Representing 3D shapes is a fundamental problem in artificial intelligence, which has numerous applications within computer vision and graphics. One avenue that has recently begun to be explored is the use of latent representations of generative models. However, it remains an open problem to learn a generative model of shapes that is interpretable and easily manipulated, particularly in the absence of supervised labels. In this paper, we propose an unsupervised approach to partitioning the latent space of a variational autoencoder for 3D point clouds in a natural way, using only geometric information, that builds upon prior work utilizing generative adversarial models of point sets. Our method makes use of tools from spectral geometry to separate intrinsic and extrinsic shape information, and then considers several hierarchical disentanglement penalties for dividing the latent space in this manner. We also propose a novel disentanglement penalty that penalizes the predicted change in the latent representation of the output,with respect to the latent variables of the initial shape. We show that the resulting latent representation exhibits intuitive and interpretable behaviour, enabling tasks such as pose transfer that cannot easily be performed by models with an entangled representation.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207