Our new X account is live! Follow @wizwand_team for updates
WorkDL logo mark

Unsupervised Learning of Robust Spectral Shape Matching

About

We propose a novel learning-based approach for robust 3D shape matching. Our method builds upon deep functional maps and can be trained in a fully unsupervised manner. Previous deep functional map methods mainly focus on predicting optimised functional maps alone, and then rely on off-the-shelf post-processing to obtain accurate point-wise maps during inference. However, this two-stage procedure for obtaining point-wise maps often yields sub-optimal performance. In contrast, building upon recent insights about the relation between functional maps and point-wise maps, we propose a novel unsupervised loss to couple the functional maps and point-wise maps, and thereby directly obtain point-wise maps without any post-processing. Our approach obtains accurate correspondences not only for near-isometric shapes, but also for more challenging non-isometric shapes and partial shapes, as well as shapes with different discretisation or topological noise. Using a total of nine diverse datasets, we extensively evaluate the performance and demonstrate that our method substantially outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods, even compared to recent supervised methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/dongliangcao/Unsupervised-Learning-of-Robust-Spectral-Shape-Matching.

Dongliang Cao, Paul Roetzer, Florian Bernard• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Shape MatchingFAUST (test)
Mean Geodesic Error0.016
85
3D Shape CorrespondenceFAUST remeshed (test)
Mean Geodesic Error (x100)1.6
65
Shape MatchingSHREC'19 (test)
Mean Geodesic Error4.6
54
Shape MatchingSCAPE remeshed (test)
Mean Geodesic Error (x100)1.9
46
Non-rigid shape matchingDT4D-H
Mean Geodesic Error (x100)4.5
39
Shape MatchingSHREC19 remeshed (test)
Mean Geodesic Error0.057
37
Near-isometric shape matchingSCAPE (test)
Mean Geodesic Error1.9
32
Non-isometric 3D shape matchingSMAL
Mean Geodesic Error0.06
22
Shape correspondence estimationTOPKIDS
Geodesic Error (x100)8.9
19
Shape MatchingSHREC CUTS 2016 (test)
Average Geodesic Error0.032
18
Showing 10 of 24 rows

Other info

Follow for update