Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce Neural Marching Cubes , a data-driven approach for extracting a triangle mesh from a discretized implicit field. We base our meshing approach on Marching Cubes (MC), due to the simplicity of its input, namely a uniform grid of signed distances or occupancies, which frequently arise in surface reconstruction and from neural implicit models. However, classical MC is defined by coarse tessellation templates isolated to individual cubes. While more refined tessellations have been proposed by several MC variants, they all make heuristic assumptions, such as trilinearity, when determining the vertex positions and local mesh topologies in each cube. In principle, none of these approaches can reconstruct geometric features that reveal coherence or dependencies between nearby cubes (e.g., a sharp edge ), as such information is unaccounted for, resulting in poor estimates of the true underlying implicit field. To tackle these challenges, we re-cast MC from a deep learning perspective, by designing tessellation templates more apt at preserving geometric features, and learning the vertex positions and mesh topologies from training meshes, to account for contextual information from nearby cubes. We develop a compact per-cube parameterization to represent the output triangle mesh, while being compatible with neural processing, so that a simple 3D convolutional network can be employed for the training. We show that all topological cases in each cube that are applicable to our design can be easily derived using our representation, and the resulting tessellations can also be obtained naturally and efficiently by following a few design guidelines. In addition, our network learns local features with limited receptive fields, hence it generalizes well to new shapes and new datasets. We evaluate our neural MC approach by quantitative and qualitative comparisons to all well-known MC variants. In particular, we demonstrate the ability of our network to recover sharp features such as edges and corners, a long-standing issue of MC and its variants. Our network also reconstructs local mesh topologies more accurately than previous approaches. Code and data are available at https://github.com/czq142857/NMC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".