MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287990769 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.10589

Front2Back: Single View 3D Shape Reconstruction via Front to Back\n Prediction

2019· preprint· en· W4287990769 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yuan Yao, Nico Schertler, Enrique Rosales, Helge Rhodin, Leonid Sigal, Alla Sheffer

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCompute CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAmbiguitySilhouetteBenchmark (surveying)3D reconstructionComputer visionPerspective (graphical)Surface (topology)Point cloudSurface reconstructionDepth mapGeometryImage (mathematics)MathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reconstruction of a 3D shape from a single 2D image is a classical computer\nvision problem, whose difficulty stems from the inherent ambiguity of\nrecovering occluded or only partially observed surfaces. Recent methods address\nthis challenge through the use of largely unstructured neural networks that\neffectively distill conditional mapping and priors over 3D shape. In this work,\nwe induce structure and geometric constraints by leveraging three core\nobservations: (1) the surface of most everyday objects is often almost entirely\nexposed from pairs of typical opposite views; (2) everyday objects often\nexhibit global reflective symmetries which can be accurately predicted from\nsingle views; (3) opposite orthographic views of a 3D shape share consistent\nsilhouettes. Following these observations, we first predict orthographic 2.5D\nvisible surface maps (depth, normal and silhouette) from perspective 2D images,\nand detect global reflective symmetries in this data; second, we predict the\nback facing depth and normal maps using as input the front maps and, when\navailable, the symmetric reflections of these maps; and finally, we reconstruct\na 3D mesh from the union of these maps using a surface reconstruction method\nbest suited for this data. Our experiments demonstrate that our framework\noutperforms state-of-the art approaches for 3D shape reconstructions from 2D\nand 2.5D data in terms of input fidelity and details preservation.\nSpecifically, we achieve 12% better performance on average in ShapeNet\nbenchmark dataset, and up to 19% for certain classes of objects (e.g., chairs\nand vessels).\n

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.113 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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