Interactive Annotation of 3D Object Geometry using 2D Scribbles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inferring detailed 3D geometry of the scene is crucial for robotics applications, simulation, and 3D content creation. However, such information is hard to obtain, and thus very few datasets support it. In this paper, we propose an interactive framework for annotating 3D object geometry from both point cloud data and RGB imagery. The key idea behind our approach is to exploit strong priors that humans have about the 3D world in order to interactively annotate complete 3D shapes. Our framework targets naive users without artistic or graphics expertise. We introduce two simple-to-use interaction modules. First, we make an automatic guess of the 3D shape and allow the user to provide feedback about large errors by drawing scribbles in desired 2D views. Next, we aim to correct minor errors, in which users drag and drop mesh vertices, assisted by a neural interactive module implemented as a Graph Convolutional Network. Experimentally, we show that only a few user interactions are needed to produce good quality 3D shapes on popular benchmarks such as ShapeNet, Pix3D and ScanNet. We implement our framework as a web service and conduct a user study, where we show that user annotated data using our method effectively facilitates real-world learning tasks. Web service: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~shenti11/scribble3d.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".