Neural Semantic Surface Maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present an automated technique for computing a map between two genus‐zero shapes, which matches semantically corresponding regions to one another. Lack of annotated data prohibits direct inference of 3D semantic priors; instead, current state‐of‐the‐art methods predominantly optimize geometric properties or require varying amounts of manual annotation. To overcome the lack of annotated training data, we distill semantic matches from pre‐trained vision models: our method renders the pair of untextured 3D shapes from multiple viewpoints; the resulting renders are then fed into an off‐the‐shelf image‐matching strategy that leverages a pre‐trained visual model to produce feature points. This yields semantic correspondences, which are projected back to the 3D shapes, producing a raw matching that is inaccurate and inconsistent across different viewpoints. These correspondences are refined and distilled into an inter‐surface map by a dedicated optimization scheme, which promotes bijectivity and continuity of the output map. We illustrate that our approach can generate semantic surface‐to‐surface maps, eliminating manual annotations or any 3D training data requirement. Furthermore, it proves effective in scenarios with high semantic complexity, where objects are non‐isometrically related, as well as in situations where they are nearly isometric.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".