MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399804981 · doi:10.1016/j.cad.2024.103746

Diverse part synthesis for 3D shape creation

2024· article· en· W4399804981 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer-Aided Design · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Generative grammarGenerative modelSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkTransformerGraphTheoretical computer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods that use neural networks for synthesizing 3D shapes in the form of a part-based representation have been introduced over the last few years. These methods represent shapes as a graph or hierarchy of parts and enable a variety of applications such as shape sampling and reconstruction. However, current methods do not allow easily regenerating individual shape parts according to user preferences. In this paper, we investigate techniques that allow the user to generate multiple, diverse suggestions for individual parts. Specifically, we experiment with multimodal deep generative models that allow sampling diverse suggestions for shape parts and focus on models which have not been considered in previous work on shape synthesis. To provide a comparative study of these techniques, we introduce a method for synthesizing 3D shapes in a part-based representation and evaluate all the part suggestion techniques within this synthesis method. In our method, which is inspired by previous work, shapes are represented as a set of parts in the form of implicit functions which are then positioned in space to form the final shape. Synthesis in this representation is enabled by a neural network architecture based on an implicit decoder and a spatial transformer. We compare the various multimodal generative models by evaluating their performance in generating part suggestions. Our contribution is to show with qualitative and quantitative evaluations which of the new techniques for multimodal part generation perform the best and that a synthesis method based on the top-performing techniques allows the user to more finely control the parts that are generated in the 3D shapes while maintaining high shape fidelity when reconstructing shapes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.200 · 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