DINA: Deformable INteraction Analogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce deformable interaction analogy (DINA) as a means to generate close interactions between two 3D objects. Given a single demo interaction between an anchor object (e.g. a hand) and a source object (e.g. a mug grasped by the hand), our goal is to generate many analogous 3D interactions between the same anchor object and various new target objects (e.g. a toy airplane), where the anchor object is allowed to be rigid or deformable. To this end, we optimize the pose or shape of the anchor object to adapt it to a new target object to mimic the demo. To facilitate the optimization, we advocate using interaction interface (ITF), defined by a set of points sampled on the anchor object, as a descriptive and robust interaction representation that is amenable to non-rigid deformation. We model similarity between interactions using ITF, while for interaction analogy, we transform the ITF, either rigidly or non-rigidly, to guide the feature matching to the reposing and deformation of the anchor object. Qualitative and quantitative experiments show that our ITF-guided deformable interaction analogy works surprisingly well even with simple distance features compared to variants of state-of-the-art methods that utilize more sophisticated interaction representations and feature learning from large datasets.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".