Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Deformation-driven shape correspondence via shape recognition

Published:20 July 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Many approaches to shape comparison and recognition start by establishing a shape correspondence. We "turn the table" and show that quality shape correspondences can be obtained by performing many shape recognition tasks. What is more, the method we develop computes a fine-grained, topology-varying part correspondence between two 3D shapes where the core evaluation mechanism only recognizes shapes globally. This is made possible by casting the part correspondence problem in a deformation-driven framework and relying on a data-driven "deformation energy" which rates visual similarity between deformed shapes and models from a shape repository. Our basic premise is that if a correspondence between two chairs (or airplanes, bicycles, etc.) is correct, then a reasonable deformation between the two chairs anchored on the correspondence ought to produce plausible, "chair-like" in-between shapes.

Given two 3D shapes belonging to the same category, we perform a top-down, hierarchical search for part correspondences. For a candidate correspondence at each level of the search hierarchy, we deform one input shape into the other, while respecting the correspondence, and rate the correspondence based on how well the resulting deformed shapes resemble other shapes from ShapeNet belonging to the same category as the inputs. The resemblance, i.e., plausibility, is measured by comparing multi-view depth images over category-specific features learned for the various shape categories. We demonstrate clear improvements over state-of-the-art approaches through tests covering extensive sets of man-made models with rich geometric and topological variations.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

papers-0152.mp4

mp4

179.1 MB

References

  1. Ibraheem Alhashim, Honghua Li, Kai Xu, Junjie Cao, Rui Ma, and Hao Zhang. 2014. Topology-Varying 3D Shape Creation via Structural Blending. ACM Trans. on Graphics 33, 4 (2014), 158:1--158:10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ibraheem Alhashim, Kai Xu, Yixin Zhuang, Junjie Cao, Patricio Simari, and Hao Zhang. 2015. Deformation-driven Topology-varying 3D Shape Correspondence. ACM Trans. on Graphics 34, 6 (2015), 236:1--236:13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Brett Allen, Brian Curless, and Zoran Popović. 2003. The Space of Human Body Shapes: Reconstruction and Parameterization from Range Scans. ACM Trans. on Graphics 22, 3 (2003), 587--594. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Aayush Bansal, Abhinav Shrivastava, Carl Doersch, and Abhinav Gupta. 2015. Mid-level elements for object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.07284 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Volker Blanz and Thomas Vetter. 1999. A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. In Proc. SIGGRAPH. 187--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ding-Yun Chen, Xiao-Pei Tian, Yu-Te Shen, and Ming Ouhyoung. 2003. On visual similarity based 3D model retrieval. Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. EUROGRAPHICS) 22, 3 (2003), 223--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Navneet Dalal and Bill Triggs. 2005. Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005. CVPR 2005. IEEE Computer Society Conference on, Vol. 1. IEEE, 886--893. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Noa Fish, van Kaick, Amit Bermano, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2016. Structure-oriented Networks of Shape Collections. ACM Trans. on Graphics 35, 6 (2016), 171:1--171:14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lin Gao, Yu-Kun Lai, Qixing Huang, and Shi-Min Hu. 2013. A Data-Driven Approach to Realistic Shape Morphing. Computer Graphics Forum 32, 2 (2013), 449--457. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Aleksey Golovinskiy and Thomas Funkhouser. 2009. Consistent segmentation of 3D models. Computers & Graphics (Proc. SMI) 33, 3 (2009), 262--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ruizhen Hu, Oliver van Kaick, Bojian Wu, Hui Huang, Ariel Shamir, and Hao Zhang. 2016. Learning How Objects Function via Co-Analysis of Interactions. ACM Trans. on Graphics 35, 4 (2016), 47:1--47:13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Qixing Huang, Vladlen Koltun, and Leonidas Guibas. 2011. Joint shape segmentation with linear programming. ACM Trans. on Graphics 30, 6 (2011), 125:1--125:12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Qixing Huang, Fan Wang, and Leonidas Guibas. 2014. Functional map networks for analyzing and exploring large shape collections. ACM Trans. on Graphics 33, 4 (2014), 36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Qi-Xing Huang, Hao Su, and Leonidas Guibas. 2013. Fine-grained Semi-supervised Labeling of Large Shape Collections. ACM Trans. on Graphics 32, 6 (2013), 190:1--190:10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael Kazhdan, Thomas Funkhouser, and Szymon Rusinkiewicz. 2004. Symmetry descriptors and 3D shape matching. In Proceedings of the 2004 Eurographics/ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Geometry processing. 115--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Vladimir G. Kim, Wilmot Li, Niloy J. Mitra, Siddhartha Chaudhuri, Stephen DiVerdi, and Thomas Funkhouser. 2013. Learning Part-based Templates from Large Collections of 3D Shapes. ACM Trans. on Graphics 32, 4 (2013), 70:1--70:12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Yanir Kleiman, Oliver van Kaick, Olga Sorkine-Hornung, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2015. SHED: Shape Edit Distance for Fine-grained Shape Similarity. ACM Trans. on Graphics 34, 6 (2015), 235:1--235:11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hamid Laga, Michela Mortara, and Michela Spagnuolo. 2013. Geometry and Context for Semantic Correspondences and Functionality Recognition in Man-made 3D Shapes. ACM Trans. on Graphics 32, 5 (2013), 150:1--150:16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Jonathan Masci, Davide Boscaini, Michael Bronstein, and Pierre Vandergheynst. 2015. Geodesic convolutional neural networks on Riemannian manifolds. In Proc. of ICCV Workshops. 37--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Niloy Mitra, Michael Wand, Hao (Richard) Zhang, Daniel Cohen-Or, Vladimir Kim, and Qi-Xing Huang. 2013. Structure-aware Shape Processing. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2013 Courses. 1:1--1:20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Alain Pitiot, Herve Delingette, and Paul Thompson. 2007. Learning Shape Correspondence for n-D curves. Int. J. Computer Vision. 71, 1 (2007), 71--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Joshua Podolak, Philip Shilane, Aleksey Golovinskiy, Szymon Rusinkiewicz, and Thomas Funkhouser. 2006. A planar-reflective symmetry transform for 3D shapes. ACM Trans. on Graphics 25, 3 (2006), 549--559. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Charles Qi, Hao Su, Matthias Niessner, Angela Dai, Mengyuan Yan, and Leonidas Guibas. 2016. Volumetric and Multi-View CNNs for Object Classification on 3D Data. In Proc. IEEE Conf. on CVPR. 5648--5656.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Emanuele Rodolà, Samuel Rota Bulo, Thomas Windheuser, Matthias Vestner, and Daniel Cremers. 2014. Dense non-rigid shape correspondence using random forests. In Proc. IEEE Conf. on CVPR. 4177--4184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. T. W. Sederberg and E. Greenwood. 1992. A physically based approach to 2-D shape blending. In Proc. SIGGRAPH. 25--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Oana Sidi, Oliver van Kaick, Yanir Kleiman, Hao Zhang, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2011. Unsupervised Co-Segmentation of a Set of Shapes via Descriptor-Space Spectral Clustering. ACM Trans. on Graphics 30, 6 (2011), 126:1--126:9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Saurabh Singh, Abhinav Gupta, and Alexei Efros. 2012. Unsupervised discovery of mid-level discriminative patches. In Proc. Euro. Conf. on Comp. Vis. (ECCV). 73--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hao Su, Manolis Savva, Li Yi, Angel X. Chang, Shuran Song, Fisher Yu, Zimo Li, Jianxiong Xiao, Qixing Huang, Silvio Savarese, Thomas Funkhouser, Patrick Hanrahan, and Leonidas J. Guibas. 2015. ShapeNet: An Information-Rich 3D Model Repository.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Art Tevs, Qixing Huang, Michael Wand, Hans-Peter Seidel, and Leonidas Guibas. 2014. Relating Shapes via Geometric Symmetries and Regularities. ACM Trans. on Graphics 33, 4 (2014), 119:1--119:12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Jasper RR Uijlings, Koen EA van de Sande, Theo Gevers, and Arnold WM Smeulders. 2013. Selective search for object recognition. Int. J. Computer Vision. 104, 2 (2013), 154--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Oliver van Kaick, Noa Fish, Yanir Kleiman, Shmuel Asafi, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2014. Shape Segmentation by Approximate Convexity Analysis. ACM Trans. on Graphics 34, 1 (2014), 4:1--4:11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Oliver van Kaick, Andrea Tagliasacchi, Oana Sidi, Hao Zhang, Daniel Cohen-Or, Lior Wolf, and Ghassan Hamarneh. 2011. Prior Knowledge for Shape Correspondence. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 2 (2011), 553--562. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Oliver van Kaick, Kai Xu, Hao Zhang, Yanzhen Wang, Shuyang Sun, Ariel Shamir, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2013. Co-Hierarchical Analysis of Shape Structures. ACM Trans. on Graphics 32, 4 (2013), 69:1--69:10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Oliver van Kaick, Hao Zhang, Ghassan Hamarneh, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2010. A Survey on Shape Correspondence. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 6 (2010), 1681--1707. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Yanzhen Wang, Kai Xu, Jun Li, Hao Zhang, Ariel Shamir, Ligang Liu, Zhiquan Cheng, and Yueshan Xiong. 2011. Symmetry Hierarchy of Man-Made Objects. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 2 (2011), 287--296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Kai Xu, Vladimir Kim, Qixing Huang, and Evangelos Kalogerakis. 2016. Data-Driven Shape Analysis and Processing. Computer Graphics Forum (2016), to appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Kai Xu, Honghua Li, Hao Zhang, Daniel Cohen-Or, Yueshan Xiong, and Zhiquan Cheng. 2010. Style-Content Separation by Anisotropic Part Scales. ACM Trans. on Graphics 29, 6 (2010), 184:1--184:9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Kai Xu, Hao Zhang, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Baoquan Chen. 2012. Fit and Diverse: Set Evolution for Inspiring 3D Shape Galleries. ACM Trans. on Graphics 31, 4 (2012), 57:1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Lihi Zelnik-Manor and Pietro Perona. 2004. Self-tuning spectral clustering. In NIPS. 1601--1608.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Hao Zhang, Alla Sheffer, Daniel Cohen-Or, Qingnan Zhou, Oliver van Kaick, and Andrea Tagliasacchi. 2008. Deformation-Driven Shape Correspondence. Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. SGP) 27, 5 (2008), 1431--1439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Youyi Zheng, Daniel Cohen-Or, Melinos Averkiou, and Niloy J. Mitra. 2014. Recurring Part Arrangements in Shape Collections. Computer Graphics Forum 33, 2 (2014), 115--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Deformation-driven shape correspondence via shape recognition

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
      ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 36, Issue 4
      August 2017
      2155 pages
      ISSN:0730-0301
      EISSN:1557-7368
      DOI:10.1145/3072959
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 July 2017
      Published in tog Volume 36, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader