MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138190323 · doi:10.1145/1882261.1866176

Cone carving for surface reconstruction

2010· article· en· W3138190323 on OpenAlexaff
Shy Shalom, Ariel Shamir, Hao Zhang, Daniel Cohen‐Or

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudCarvingVisibilitySurface (topology)Computer scienceComputer visionSurface reconstructionCone (formal languages)Point (geometry)Artificial intelligenceGeometryPosition (finance)MathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)AlgorithmOpticsPhysicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present cone carving, a novel space carving technique supporting topologically correct surface reconstruction from an incomplete scanned point cloud. The technique utilizes the point samples not only for local surface position estimation but also to obtain global visibility information under the assumption that each acquired point is visible from a point lying outside the shape. This enables associating each point with a generalized cone, called the visibility cone , that carves a portion of the outside ambient space of the shape from the inside out. These cones collectively provide a means to better approximate the signed distances to the shape specifically near regions containing large holes in the scan, allowing one to infer the correct surface topology. Combining the new distance measure with conventional RBF, we define an implicit function whose zero level set defines the surface of the shape. We demonstrate the utility of cone carving in coping with significant missing data and raw scans from a commercial 3D scanner as well as synthetic input.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207