MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106148219

Learning Deformable Tetrahedral Meshes for 3D Reconstruction

2020· article· en· W3106148219 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Gao, Wenzheng Chen, Tommy Xiang, Alec Jacobson, Morgan McGuire, Sanja Fidler

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Information Processing Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon meshPoint cloudComputer scienceTetrahedronVoxelSurface reconstructionVertex (graph theory)Artificial intelligenceComputer graphicsMesh generation3D reconstructionGeometry processingDifferentiable functionComputational scienceArtificial neural networkAlgorithmComputer graphics (images)Surface (topology)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsGeometryFinite element method
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D shape representations that accommodate learning-based 3D reconstruction are an open problem in machine learning and computer graphics. Previous work on neural 3D reconstruction demonstrated benefits, but also limitations, of point cloud, voxel, surface mesh, and implicit function representations. We introduce Deformable Tetrahedral Meshes (DefTet) as a particular parameterization that utilizes volumetric tetrahedral meshes for the reconstruction problem. Unlike existing volumetric approaches, DefTet optimizes for both vertex placement and occupancy, and is differentiable with respect to standard 3D reconstruction loss functions. It is thus simultaneously high-precision, volumetric, and amenable to learning-based neural architectures. We show that it can represent arbitrary, complex topology, is both memory and computationally efficient, and can produce high-fidelity reconstructions with a significantly smaller grid size than alternative volumetric approaches. The predicted surfaces are also inherently defined as tetrahedral meshes, thus do not require post-processing. We demonstrate that DefTet matches or exceeds both the quality of the previous best approaches and the performance of the fastest ones. Our approach obtains high-quality tetrahedral meshes computed directly from noisy point clouds, and is the first to showcase high-quality 3D tet-mesh results using only a single image as input. Our project webpage: this https URL

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)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural Information Processing SystemsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207