Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".