MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389362885 · doi:10.1145/3618361

Reconstruction of Machine-Made Shapes from Bitmap Sketches

2023· article· en· W4389362885 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Puhachov, C. Martens, Paul G. Kry, Mikhail Bessmeltsev

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBitmapComputer sciencePolygon meshGeometric primitiveArtificial intelligenceRendering (computer graphics)Computer visionSketchComputer graphics (images)SegmentationAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a method of reconstructing 3D machine-made shapes from bitmap sketches by separating an input image into individual patches and jointly optimizing their geometry. We rely on two main observations: (1) human observers interpret sketches of man-made shapes as a collection of simple geometric primitives, and (2) sketch strokes often indicate occlusion contours or sharp ridges between those primitives. Using these main observations we design a system that takes a single bitmap image of a shape, estimates image depth and segmentation into primitives with neural networks, then fits primitives to the predicted depth while determining occlusion contours and aligning intersections with the input drawing via optimization. Unlike previous work, our approach does not require additional input, annotation, or templates, and does not require retraining for a new category of man-made shapes. Our method produces triangular meshes that display sharp geometric features and are suitable for downstream applications, such as editing, rendering, and shading.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207