Interaction-Driven Active 3D Reconstruction with Object Interiors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce an active 3D reconstruction method which integrates visual perception, robot-object interaction , and 3D scanning to recover both the exterior and interior , i.e., unexposed, geometries of a target 3D object. Unlike other works in active vision which focus on optimizing camera viewpoints to better investigate the environment, the primary feature of our reconstruction is an analysis of the interactability of various parts of the target object and the ensuing part manipulation by a robot to enable scanning of occluded regions. As a result, an understanding of part articulations of the target object is obtained on top of complete geometry acquisition. Our method operates fully automatically by a Fetch robot with built-in RGBD sensors. It iterates between interaction analysis and interaction-driven reconstruction, scanning and reconstructing detected moveable parts one at a time, where both the articulated part detection and mesh reconstruction are carried out by neural networks. In the final step, all the remaining, non-articulated parts, including all the interior structures that had been exposed by prior part manipulations and subsequently scanned, are reconstructed to complete the acquisition. We demonstrate the performance of our method via qualitative and quantitative evaluation, ablation studies, comparisons to alternatives, as well as experiments in a real environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".