MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Leveraging Transformer and CNN for Monocular 3D Point Cloud Reconstruction

2023· article· en· W4388267338 on OpenAlexaff
AmirHossein Zamani, Touraj Ghaffari, Amir G. Aghdam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePoint cloudConvolutional neural networkTransformerArtificial intelligenceRGB color modelComputer visionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A transformer-based 3D object reconstruction approach is proposed in this paper to process an input monocular RGB image. This is carried out by a network containing two branches: (i) the convolutional neural network (CNN) branch and (ii) the transformer branch. The CNN branch aims to capture the local features and tiny details of the input image and convert them into the thin structures of the 3D point cloud output. The transformer branch, on the other hand, attends to the global structures and features, capturing long-distance relationships in the input image and transforming them from the feature space to the point cloud space to construct the global geometry of the 3D output. The transformer branch enables the method to learn to attend to the most relevant image features for each 3D point in the output. Moreover, point clouds generated by a combination of the transformer and CNN maintain the general geometrical structure of the object while preserving fine-level features only where needed. This reduces the memory requirement, enabling more accurate results compared to existing methods without losing computational efficiency. We also design and implement different network architectures to determine the required elements in the proposed network. All the architectures are evaluated using a proper dataset, and the results are compared to existing methods. Simulations demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed approach<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207