Perceptual Crack Detection for Rendered 3D Textured Meshes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have witnessed many advancements in the applications of 3D textured meshes. As the demand continues to rise, evaluating the perceptual quality of this new type of media content becomes crucial for quality assurance and optimization purposes. Different from traditional image quality assessment, crack is an annoying artifact specific to rendered 3D meshes that severely affects their perceptual quality. In this work, we make one of the first attempts to propose a novel Perceptual Crack Detection (PCD) method for detecting and localizing crack artifacts in rendered meshes. Specifically, motivated by the characteristics of the human visual system (HVS), we adopt contrast and Laplacian measurement modules to characterize crack artifacts and differentiate them from other undesired artifacts. Extensive experiments on large-scale public datasets of 3D textured meshes demonstrate effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed PCD method in correct localization and detection of crack artifacts. Moreover, to quantify the performance of the proposed detection method and validate its effectiveness, we propose a simple yet effective weighting mechanism to incorporate the resulting crack map into classical quality assessment (QA) models, which creates significant performance improvement in predicting the perceptual image quality when tested on public datasets of static 3D textured meshes. A software release of the proposed method is publicly available at: https://github.com/arshafiee/crack-detection-VVM
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".