MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193639655 · doi:10.1111/cgf.14359

Discrete Optimization for Shape Matching

2021· article· en· W3193639655 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Ren, Simone Melzi, Peter Wonka, Maks Ovsjanikov

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPointwiseSolverEnergy functionalComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Constraint (computer-aided design)AlgorithmRange (aeronautics)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a novel discrete solver for optimizing functional map‐based energies, including descriptor preservation and promoting structural properties such as area‐preservation, bijectivity and Laplacian commutativity among others. Unlike the commonly‐used continuous optimization methods, our approach enforces the functional map to be associated with a pointwise correspondence as a hard constraint, which provides a stronger link between optimized properties of functional and point‐to‐point maps. Under this hard constraint, our solver obtains functional maps with lower energy values compared to the standard continuous strategies. Perhaps more importantly, the recovered pointwise maps from our discrete solver preserve the optimized for functional properties and are thus of higher overall quality. We demonstrate the advantages of our discrete solver on a range of energies and shape categories, compared to existing techniques for promoting pointwise maps within the functional map framework. Finally, with this solver in hand, we introduce a novel Effective Functional Map Refinement (EFMR) method which achieves the state‐of‐the‐art accuracy on the SHREC'19 benchmark.

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)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations48
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207