Survey on Modeling of Human‐made Articulated Objects
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 3D modeling of articulated objects is a research problem within computer vision, graphics, and robotics. Its objective is to understand the shape and motion of the articulated components, represent the geometry and mobility of object parts, and create realistic models that reflect articulated objects in the real world. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current state‐of‐the‐art in 3D modeling of articulated objects, with a specific focus on the task of articulated part perception and articulated object creation (reconstruction and generation). We systematically review and discuss the relevant literature from two perspectives: geometry modeling (i.e., structure and shape of articulated parts) and articulation modeling (i.e., dynamics and motion of parts). Through this survey, we highlight the substantial progress made in these areas, outline the ongoing challenges, and identify gaps for future research. Our survey aims to serve as a foundational reference for researchers and practitioners in computer vision and graphics, offering insights into the complexities of articulated object modeling.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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