Approximating Procedural Models of 3D Shapes with Neural Networks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Procedural modeling is a popular technique for 3D content creation and offers a number of advantages over alternative techniques for modeling 3D shapes. However, given a procedural model, predicting the procedural parameters of existing data provided in different modalities can be challenging. This is because the data may be in a different representation than the one generated by the procedural model, and procedural models are usually not invertible, nor are they differentiable. In this paper, we address these limitations and introduce an invertible and differentiable representation for procedural models. We approximate parameterized procedures with a neural network architecture NNProc that learns both the forward and inverse mapping of the procedural model by aligning the latent spaces of shape parameters and shapes. The network is trained in a manner that is agnostic to the inner workings of the procedural model, implying that models implemented in different languages or systems can be used. We demonstrate how the proposed representation can be used for both forward and inverse procedural modeling. Moreover, we show how NNProc can be used in conjunction with optimization for applications such as shape reconstruction from an image or a 3D Gaussian Splatting.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it