Multi-view 3D Reconstruction with Transformers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep CNN-based methods have so far achieved the state of the art results in multi-view 3D object reconstruction. Despite the considerable progress, the two core modules of these methods - view feature extraction and multi-view fusion, are usually investigated separately, and the relations among multiple input views are rarely explored. Inspired by the recent great success in Transformer models, we reformulate the multi-view 3D reconstruction as a sequence-to-sequence prediction problem and propose a framework named 3D Volume Transformer. Unlike previous CNN-based methods using a separate design, we unify the feature extraction and view fusion in a single Transformer network. A natural advantage of our design lies in the exploration of view-to-view relationships using self-attention among multiple unordered inputs. On ShapeNet - a large-scale 3D reconstruction benchmark, our method achieves a new state-of-the-art accuracy in multi-view reconstruction with fewer parameters (70% less) than CNN-based methods. Experimental results also suggest the strong scaling capability of our method. Our code will be made publicly available.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it