Approximating Procedural Models of 3D Shapes with Neural Networks
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".