Slippage-Preserving Reshaping of Human-Made 3D Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artists often need to reshape 3D models of human-made objects by changing the relative proportions or scales of different model parts or elements while preserving the look and structure of the inputs. Manually reshaping inputs to satisfy these criteria is highly time-consuming; the edit in our teaser took an artist 5 hours to complete. However, existing methods for 3D shape editing are largely designed for other tasks and produce undesirable outputs when repurposed for reshaping. Prior work on 2D curve network reshaping suggests that in 2D settings the user-expected outcome is achieved when the reshaping edit keeps the orientations of the different model elements and when these elements scale as-locally-uniformly-as-possible (ALUP). However, our observations suggest that in 3D viewers are tolerant of non-uniform tangential scaling if and when this scaling preserves slippage and reduces changes in element size, or scale , relative to the input. Slippage preservation requires surfaces which are locally slippable with respect to a given rigid motion to retain this property post-reshaping (a motion is slippable if when applied to the surface, it slides the surface along itself without gaps). We build on these observations by first extending the 2D ALUP framework to 3D and then modifying it to allow non-uniform scaling while promoting slippage and scale preservation. Our 3D ALUP extension produces reshaped outputs better aligned with viewer expectations than prior alternatives; our slippage-aware method further improves the outcome producing results on par with manual reshaping ones. Our method does not require any user input beyond specifying control handles and their target locations. We validate our method by applying it to over one hundred diverse inputs and by comparing our results to those generated by alternative approaches and manually. Comparative study participants preferred our outputs over the best performing traditional deformation method by a 65% margin and over our 3D ALUP extension by a 61% margin; they judged our outputs as at least on par with manually produced ones.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".