Evaluating 3D Shape Analysis Methods for Robustness to Rotation Invariance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the robustness of recent 3D shape descriptors to SO(3) rotations, something that is fundamental to shape modeling. Specifically, we formulate the task of rotated 3D object instance detection. To do so, we consider a database of 3D indoor scenes, where objects occur in different orientations. We benchmark different methods for feature extraction and classification in the context of this task. We systematically contrast different choices in a variety of experimental settings investigating the impact on the performance of different rotation distributions, different degrees of partial observations on the object, and the different levels of difficulty of negative pairs. Our study, on a synthetic dataset of 3D scenes where objects instances occur in different orientations, reveals that deep learning-based rotation invariant methods are effective for relatively easy settings with easy-to-distinguish pairs. However, their performance decreases significantly when the difference in rotations on the input pair is large, or when the degree of observation of input objects is reduced, or the difficulty level of input pair is increased. Finally, we connect feature encodings designed for rotation-invariant methods to 3D geometry that enable them to acquire the property of rotation invariance.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".