Unsupervised 3D Shape Parsing with Primitive Correspondence
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
3D shape parsing, the process of analyzing and breaking down a 3D shape into components or parts, has become an important task in computer graphics and vision. Approaches for shape parsing include segmentation and approximation methods. Approximation methods often represent shapes with a set of primitives fit to the shapes, such as cuboids, cylinders, or superquadrics. However, existing approximation methods typically rely on a large number of initial primitives and aim to maximize their coverage of the target shape, without accounting for correspondences among the primitives. In this paper, we introduce a novel 3D shape approximation method that integrates reconstruction and correspondence into a single objective, providing approximations that are consistent across the input set of shapes. Our method is unsupervised but also supports supervised learning. Experimental results demonstrate that integrating correspondences into the fitting process not only provides consistent correspondences across a set of input shapes, but also improves approximation quality when using a small number of primitives. Moreover, although correspondences are estimated in an unsupervised manner, our method effectively leverages this knowledge, leading to improved approximations.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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