MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034671543 · doi:10.1155/2020/9050459

An Efficient 3D Model Retrieval Method Based on Convolutional Neural Network

2020· article· en· W3034671543 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bo Ding, Lei Tang, Yongjun He

Bibliographic record

VenueComplexity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang ProvinceDepartment of Education, Heilongjiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkMatching (statistics)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Similarity (geometry)Data miningImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, 3D model retrieval based on views has become a research hotspot. In this method, 3D models are represented as a collection of 2D projective views, which allows deep learning techniques to be used for 3D model classification and retrieval. However, current methods need improvements in both accuracy and efficiency. To solve these problems, we propose a new 3D model retrieval method, which includes index building and model retrieval. In the index building stage, 3D models in library are projected to generate a large number of views, and then representative views are selected and input into a well-learned convolutional neural network (CNN) to extract features. Next, the features are organized according to their labels to build indexes. In this stage, the views used for representing 3D models are reduced substantially on the premise of keeping enough information of 3D models. This method reduces the number of similarity matching by 87.8%. In retrieval, the 2D views of the input model are classified into a category with the CNN and voting algorithm, and then only the features of one category rather than all categories are chosen to perform similarity matching. In this way, the searching space for retrieval is reduced. In addition, the number of used views for retrieval is gradually increased. Once there is enough evidence to determine a 3D model, the retrieval process will be terminated ahead of time. The variable view matching method further reduces the number of similarity matching by 21.4%. Experiments on the rigid 3D model datasets ModelNet10 and ModelNet40 and the nonrigid 3D model dataset McGill10 show that the proposed method has achieved retrieval accuracy rates of 94%, 92%, and 100%, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComplexitySame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207