3D Shape Reconstruction from Vision and Touch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a toddler is presented a new toy, their instinctual behaviour is to pick it upand inspect it with their hand and eyes in tandem, clearly searching over its surface to properly understand what they are playing with. At any instance here, touch provides high fidelity localized information while vision provides complementary global context. However, in 3D shape reconstruction, the complementary fusion of visual and haptic modalities remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we study this problem and present an effective chart-based approach to multi-modal shape understanding which encourages a similar fusion vision and touch http://information.to/ do so, we introduce a dataset of simulated touch and vision signals from the interaction between a robotic hand and a large array of 3D objects. Our results show that (1) leveraging both vision and touch signals consistently improves single-modality baselines; (2) our approach outperforms alternative modality fusion methods and strongly benefits from the proposed chart-based structure; (3) there construction quality increases with the number of grasps provided; and (4) the touch information not only enhances the reconstruction at the touch site but also extrapolates to its local neighborhood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".