Weakly Supervised Deep Functional Map for Shape Matching
About
A variety of deep functional maps have been proposed recently, from fully supervised to totally unsupervised, with a range of loss functions as well as different regularization terms. However, it is still not clear what are minimum ingredients of a deep functional map pipeline and whether such ingredients unify or generalize all recent work on deep functional maps. We show empirically minimum components for obtaining state of the art results with different loss functions, supervised as well as unsupervised. Furthermore, we propose a novel framework designed for both full-to-full as well as partial to full shape matching that achieves state of the art results on several benchmark datasets outperforming even the fully supervised methods by a significant margin. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/Not-IITian/Weakly-supervised-Functional-map
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3D Shape Correspondence | FAUST remeshed (test) | Mean Geodesic Error (x100)3.3 | 65 | |
| Shape Matching | SCAPE remeshed (test) | Mean Geodesic Error (x100)7.3 | 46 | |
| Near-isometric point cloud matching | SCAPE_r remeshed (test) | Mean Geodesic Error0.073 | 25 | |
| Non-isometric 3D shape matching | SMAL | Mean Geodesic Error13.3 | 22 | |
| Near-isometric shape matching | SCAPE (final 20 shapes) | Pointwise Geodesic Error7.3 | 16 | |
| Near-isometric shape matching | FAUST (last 20 shapes) | Pointwise Geodesic Error3.3 | 16 | |
| Non-rigid shape matching | SCAPE | Mean Geodesic Error4.9 | 16 | |
| Non-rigid shape matching | Faust | Mean Geodesic Error1.9 | 11 | |
| Non-rigid shape matching | SURREAL | Mean Geodesic Correspondence Error38.5 | 11 | |
| Near-isometric shape matching | SHREC (430 evaluation pairs) | Pointwise Geodesic Error11.3 | 10 |