MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126131691 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.09808

On the Effectiveness of Weight-Encoded Neural Implicit 3D Shapes

2020· preprint· en· W3126131691 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Davies, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Alec Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A neural implicit outputs a number indicating whether the given query point in space is inside, outside, or on a surface. Many prior works have focused on _latent-encoded_ neural implicits, where a latent vector encoding of a specific shape is also fed as input. While affording latent-space interpolation, this comes at the cost of reconstruction accuracy for any _single_ shape. Training a specific network for each 3D shape, a _weight-encoded_ neural implicit may forgo the latent vector and focus reconstruction accuracy on the details of a single shape. While previously considered as an intermediary representation for 3D scanning tasks or as a toy-problem leading up to latent-encoding tasks, weight-encoded neural implicits have not yet been taken seriously as a 3D shape representation. In this paper, we establish that weight-encoded neural implicits meet the criteria of a first-class 3D shape representation. We introduce a suite of technical contributions to improve reconstruction accuracy, convergence, and robustness when learning the signed distance field induced by a polygonal mesh -- the _de facto_ standard representation. Viewed as a lossy compression, our conversion outperforms standard techniques from geometry processing. Compared to previous latent- and weight-encoded neural implicits we demonstrate superior robustness, scalability, and performance.

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)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.128 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207