MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125324548 · doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.01154

Joint Learning of 3D Shape Retrieval and Deformation

2021· preprint· en· W3125324548 on OpenAlexaff
Mikaela Angelina Uy, Vladimir G. Kim, Minhyuk Sung, Noam Aigerman, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Leonidas Guibas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersSamsung
KeywordsComputer scienceDeformation (meteorology)EmbeddingJoint (building)Artificial intelligenceFocus (optics)Space (punctuation)Artificial neural networkComputer visionDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Structural engineeringEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel technique for producing high-quality 3D models that match a given target object image or scan. Our method is based on retrieving an existing shape from a database of 3D models and then deforming its parts to match the target shape. Unlike previous approaches that independently focus on either shape retrieval or deformation, we propose a joint learning procedure that simultaneously trains the neural deformation module along with the embedding space used by the retrieval module. This enables our network to learn a deformation-aware embedding space, so that retrieved models are more amenable to match the target after an appropriate deformation. In fact, we use the embedding space to guide the shape pairs used to train the deformation module, so that it invests its capacity in learning deformations between meaningful shape pairs. Furthermore, our novel part-aware deformation module can work with inconsistent and diverse part-structures on the source shapes. We demonstrate the benefits of our joint training not only on our novel framework, but also on other state- of-the-art neural deformation modules proposed in recent years. Lastly, we also show that our jointly-trained method outperforms various non-joint baselines.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207