Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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. • We introduce deformable interaction analogy (DINA) as a means to generate interactions between two 3D objects. • We propose interaction interface (ITF) which is a descriptive and robust interaction representation. • We conduct extensive experiments to show the superiority of our approach on hand grasping generation task.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it