CNS-Edit: 3D Shape Editing via Coupled Neural Shape Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a new approach based on a coupled representation and a neural volume optimization to implicitly perform 3D shape editing in latent space. This work has three innovations. First, we design the coupled neural shape (CNS) representation for supporting 3D shape editing. This representation includes a latent code, which captures high-level global semantics of the shape, and a 3D neural feature volume, which provides a spatial context to associate with the local shape changes given by the editing. Second, we formulate the coupled neural shape optimization procedure to co-optimize the two coupled components in the representation subject to the editing operation. Last, we offer various 3D shape editing operators, i.e., copy, resize, delete, and drag, and derive each into an objective for guiding the CNS optimization, such that we can iteratively co-optimize the latent code and neural feature volume to match the editing target. With our approach, we can achieve a rich variety of editing results that are not only aware of the shape semantics but are also not easy to achieve by existing approaches. Both quantitative and qualitative evaluations demonstrate the strong capabilities of our approach over the state-of-the-art solutions.
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 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) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".