MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386607324 · doi:10.1111/cgf.14927

Advances in Data‐Driven Analysis and Synthesis of 3D Indoor Scenes

2023· article· en· W4386607324 on OpenAlexafffund
Akshay Gadi Patil, Supriya Gadi Patil, Manyi Li, M. Fisher, Manolis Savva, Hao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersYoung Scientists FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceFocus (optics)Representation (politics)Artificial intelligenceTask (project management)SegmentationObject (grammar)Metric (unit)Similarity (geometry)Deep learningHuman–computer interactionComputer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This report surveys advances in deep learning‐based modelling techniques that address four different 3D indoor scene analysis tasks, as well as synthesis of 3D indoor scenes. We describe different kinds of representations for indoor scenes, various indoor scene datasets available for research in the aforementioned areas, and discuss notable works employing machine learning models for such scene modelling tasks based on these representations. Specifically, we focus on the analysis and synthesis of 3D indoor scenes. With respect to analysis, we focus on four basic scene understanding tasks – 3D object detection, 3D scene segmentation, 3D scene reconstruction and 3D scene similarity. And for synthesis, we mainly discuss neural scene synthesis works, though also highlighting model‐driven methods that allow for human‐centric, progressive scene synthesis. We identify the challenges involved in modelling scenes for these tasks and the kind of machinery that needs to be developed to adapt to the data representation, and the task setting in general. For each of these tasks, we provide a comprehensive summary of the state‐of‐the‐art works across different axes such as the choice of data representation, backbone, evaluation metric, input, output and so on, providing an organized review of the literature. Towards the end, we discuss some interesting research directions that have the potential to make a direct impact on the way users interact and engage with these virtual scene models, making them an integral part of the metaverse.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207