Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
184 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

DDM: A Metric for Comparing 3D Shapes Using Directional Distance Fields (2401.09736v5)

Published 18 Jan 2024 in cs.CV

Abstract: Qualifying the discrepancy between 3D geometric models, which could be represented with either point clouds or triangle meshes, is a pivotal issue with board applications. Existing methods mainly focus on directly establishing the correspondence between two models and then aggregating point-wise distance between corresponding points, resulting in them being either inefficient or ineffective. In this paper, we propose DDM, an efficient, effective, robust, and differentiable distance metric for 3D geometry data. Specifically, we construct DDM based on the proposed implicit representation of 3D models, namely directional distance field (DDF), which defines the directional distances of 3D points to a model to capture its local surface geometry. We then transfer the discrepancy between two 3D geometric models as the discrepancy between their DDFs defined on an identical domain, naturally establishing model correspondence. To demonstrate the advantage of our DDM, we explore various distance metric-driven 3D geometric modeling tasks, including template surface fitting, rigid registration, non-rigid registration, scene flow estimation and human pose optimization. Extensive experiments show that our DDM achieves significantly higher accuracy under all tasks. As a generic distance metric, DDM has the potential to advance the field of 3D geometric modeling. The source code is available at https://github.com/rsy6318/DDM.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (65)
  1. P. Besl and N. D. McKay, “A method for registration of 3-d shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 239–256, 1992.
  2. P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “Method for registration of 3-d shapes,” in Sensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures, vol. 1611.   Spie, 1992, pp. 586–606.
  3. Z. Deng, Y. Yao, B. Deng, and J. Zhang, “A robust loss for point cloud registration,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 6138–6147.
  4. Y. Yao, B. Deng, W. Xu, and J. Zhang, “Fast and robust non-rigid registration using accelerated majorization-minimization,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 9681–9698, 2023.
  5. Y. Yang, C. Feng, Y. Shen, and D. Tian, “Foldingnet: Point cloud auto-encoder via deep grid deformation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 206–215.
  6. H. Wang, Q. Liu, X. Yue, J. Lasenby, and M. J. Kusner, “Unsupervised point cloud pre-training via occlusion completion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 9782–9792.
  7. Y. Pang, W. Wang, F. E. Tay, W. Liu, Y. Tian, and L. Yuan, “Masked autoencoders for point cloud self-supervised learning,” in European conference on computer vision.   Springer, 2022, pp. 604–621.
  8. R. Zhang, Z. Guo, P. Gao, R. Fang, B. Zhao, D. Wang, Y. Qiao, and H. Li, “Point-m2ae: multi-scale masked autoencoders for hierarchical point cloud pre-training,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 27 061–27 074, 2022.
  9. O. Michel, R. Bar-On, R. Liu, S. Benaim, and R. Hanocka, “Text2mesh: Text-driven neural stylization for meshes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 13 492–13 502.
  10. N. Mohammad Khalid, T. Xie, E. Belilovsky, and T. Popa, “Clip-mesh: Generating textured meshes from text using pretrained image-text models,” in SIGGRAPH Asia 2022 conference papers, 2022, pp. 1–8.
  11. W. Wu, Z. Y. Wang, Z. Li, W. Liu, and L. Fuxin, “Pointpwc-net: Cost volume on point clouds for (self-) supervised scene flow estimation,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part V 16.   Springer, 2020, pp. 88–107.
  12. X. Li, J. Kaesemodel Pontes, and S. Lucey, “Neural scene flow prior,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, 2021, pp. 7838–7851.
  13. I. Lang, D. Aiger, F. Cole, S. Avidan, and M. Rubinstein, “Scoop: Self-supervised correspondence and optimization-based scene flow,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 5281–5290.
  14. Y. Rubner, C. Tomasi, and L. J. Guibas, “The earth mover’s distance as a metric for image retrieval,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 40, no. 2, p. 99, 2000.
  15. H. G. Barrow, J. M. Tenenbaum, R. C. Bolles, and H. C. Wolf, “Parametric correspondence and chamfer matching: Two new techniques for image matching,” in Proceedings: Image Understanding Workshop.   Science Applications, Inc, 1977, pp. 21–27.
  16. P. Cignoni, C. Rocchini, and R. Scopigno, “Metro: measuring error on simplified surfaces,” in Computer graphics forum, vol. 17, no. 2.   Wiley Online Library, 1998, pp. 167–174.
  17. T. Wu, L. Pan, J. Zhang, T. Wang, Z. Liu, and D. Lin, “Balanced chamfer distance as a comprehensive metric for point cloud completion,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 29 088–29 100, 2021.
  18. T. Nguyen, Q.-H. Pham, T. Le, T. Pham, N. Ho, and B.-S. Hua, “Point-set distances for learning representations of 3d point clouds,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 10 478–10 487.
  19. D. Urbach, Y. Ben-Shabat, and M. Lindenbaum, “Dpdist: Comparing point clouds using deep point cloud distance,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision.   Springer, 2020, pp. 545–560.
  20. H. Pottmann, S. Leopoldseder, and M. Hofer, “Registration without icp,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 54–71, 2004.
  21. ——, “Approximation with active b-spline curves and surfaces,” in 10th Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications, 2002. Proceedings.   IEEE, 2002, pp. 8–25.
  22. J. Chibane, T. Alldieck, and G. Pons-Moll, “Implicit functions in feature space for 3d shape reconstruction and completion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2020, pp. 6970–6981.
  23. C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 652–660.
  24. C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, pp. 1–xxx, 2017.
  25. N. Sharp, S. Attaiki, K. Crane, and M. Ovsjanikov, “Diffusionnet: Discretization agnostic learning on surfaces,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 1–16, 2022.
  26. M. Kazhdan, M. Bolitho, and H. Hoppe, “Poisson surface reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the fourth Eurographics symposium on Geometry processing, 2006, pp. 61–70.
  27. M. Kazhdan and H. Hoppe, “Screened poisson surface reconstruction,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1–13, 2013.
  28. L. Mescheder, M. Oechsle, M. Niemeyer, S. Nowozin, and A. Geiger, “Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2019, pp. 4460–4470.
  29. S. Peng, M. Niemeyer, L. Mescheder, M. Pollefeys, and A. Geiger, “Convolutional occupancy networks,” in European Conference on Computer Vision.   Springer, 2020, pp. 523–540.
  30. S. Peng, C. Jiang, Y. Liao, M. Niemeyer, M. Pollefeys, and A. Geiger, “Shape as points: A differentiable poisson solver,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 13 032–13 044, 2021.
  31. A. Boulch and R. Marlet, “Poco: Point convolution for surface reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2022, pp. 6302–6314.
  32. H. Hoppe, T. DeRose, T. Duchamp, J. McDonald, and W. Stuetzle, “Surface reconstruction from unorganized points,” in Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, 1992, pp. 71–78.
  33. R. Kolluri, “Provably good moving least squares,” ACM Transactions on Algorithms, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–25, 2008.
  34. Z.-Q. Cheng, Y.-Z. Wang, B. Li, K. Xu, G. Dang, and S.-Y. Jin, “A survey of methods for moving least squares surfaces,” in Proceedings of the Fifth Eurographics/IEEE VGTC conference on Point-Based Graphics, 2008, pp. 9–23.
  35. S.-L. Liu, H.-X. Guo, H. Pan, P.-S. Wang, X. Tong, and Y. Liu, “Deep implicit moving least-squares functions for 3d reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2021, pp. 1788–1797.
  36. J. J. Park, P. Florence, J. Straub, R. Newcombe, and S. Lovegrove, “Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2019, pp. 165–174.
  37. J. Chibane, G. Pons-Moll et al., “Neural unsigned distance fields for implicit function learning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 21 638–21 652, 2020.
  38. B. Guillard, F. Stella, and P. Fua, “Meshudf: Fast and differentiable meshing of unsigned distance field networks,” in European Conference on Computer Vision, 2022, pp. 576–592.
  39. J. Ye, Y. Chen, N. Wang, and X. Wang, “Gifs: Neural implicit function for general shape representation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2022, pp. 12 829–12 839.
  40. P.-S. Wang, Y. Liu, and X. Tong, “Dual octree graph networks for learning adaptive volumetric shape representations,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022.
  41. S. Ren, J. Hou, X. Chen, Y. He, and W. Wang, “Geoudf: Surface reconstruction from 3d point clouds via geometry-guided distance representation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Internation Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 14 214–14 224.
  42. J. A. Bærentzen and H. Aanaes, “Signed distance computation using the angle weighted pseudonormal,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 243–253, 2005.
  43. G. Barill, N. G. Dickson, R. Schmidt, D. I. Levin, and A. Jacobson, “Fast winding numbers for soups and clouds,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1–12, 2018.
  44. W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline, “Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm,” ACM siggraph computer graphics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 163–169, 1987.
  45. D. P. Huttenlocher, G. A. Klanderman, and W. J. Rucklidge, “Comparing images using the hausdorff distance,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 850–863, 1993.
  46. M. W. Jones, “3d distance from a point to a triangle,” Department of Computer Science, University of Wales Swansea Technical Report CSR-5, p. 5, 1995.
  47. Y. Chen and G. Medioni, “Object modelling by registration of multiple range images,” Image and vision computing, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 145–155, 1992.
  48. S. Rusinkiewicz, “A symmetric objective function for icp,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1–7, 2019.
  49. N. Aspert, D. Santa-Cruz, and T. Ebrahimi, “Mesh: Measuring errors between surfaces using the hausdorff distance,” in Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, vol. 1.   IEEE, 2002, pp. 705–708.
  50. W. Feng, J. Zhang, H. Cai, H. Xu, J. Hou, and H. Bao, “Recurrent multi-view alignment network for unsupervised surface registration,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 10 297–10 307.
  51. R. Hanocka, G. Metzer, R. Giryes, and D. Cohen-Or, “Point2mesh: a self-prior for deformable meshes,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 126–1, 2020.
  52. B. Nicolet, A. Jacobson, and W. Jakob, “Large steps in inverse rendering of geometry,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1–13, 2021.
  53. Y. Jung, H. Kim, G. Hwang, S.-H. Baek, and S. Lee, “Mesh density adaptation for template-based shape reconstruction,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, 2023, pp. 1–10.
  54. B. L. Bhatnagar, C. Sminchisescu, C. Theobalt, and G. Pons-Moll, “Loopreg: Self-supervised learning of implicit surface correspondences, pose and shape for 3d human mesh registration,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 12 909–12 922, 2020.
  55. M. Loper, N. Mahmood, J. Romero, G. Pons-Moll, and M. J. Black, “Smpl: A skinned multi-person linear model,” ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 34, no. 6, oct 2015.
  56. M. Smid, “Closest-point problems in computational geometry,” in Handbook of computational geometry.   Elsevier, 2000, pp. 877–935.
  57. R. W. Sumner, J. Schmid, and M. Pauly, “Embedded deformation for shape manipulation,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 Papers, 2007, p. 80–es.
  58. Y. Qiu, X. Xu, L. Qiu, Y. Pan, Y. Wu, W. Chen, and X. Han, “3dcaricshop: A dataset and a baseline method for single-view 3d caricature face reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 10 236–10 245.
  59. A. Zeng, S. Song, M. Nießner, M. Fisher, J. Xiao, and T. Funkhouser, “3dmatch: Learning local geometric descriptors from rgb-d reconstructions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 1802–1811.
  60. X. Bai, Z. Luo, L. Zhou, H. Chen, L. Li, Z. Hu, H. Fu, and C.-L. Tai, “Pointdsc: Robust point cloud registration using deep spatial consistency,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 15 859–15 869.
  61. C. Choy, W. Dong, and V. Koltun, “Deep global registration,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 2514–2523.
  62. X. Zhang, J. Yang, S. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, “3d registration with maximal cliques,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 17 745–17 754.
  63. D. Vlasic, I. Baran, W. Matusik, and J. Popović, “Articulated mesh animation from multi-view silhouettes,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2008.
  64. N. Mayer, E. Ilg, P. Hausser, P. Fischer, D. Cremers, A. Dosovitskiy, and T. Brox, “A large dataset to train convolutional networks for disparity, optical flow, and scene flow estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016, pp. 4040–4048.
  65. Q. Ma, J. Yang, A. Ranjan, S. Pujades, G. Pons-Moll, S. Tang, and M. J. Black, “Learning to dress 3d people in generative clothing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 6469–6478.

Summary

  • The paper introduces DirDist, a metric that uses directional distance fields to compare 3D models without relying on explicit point correspondence.
  • It demonstrates that DirDist achieves higher accuracy and efficiency compared to traditional approaches like Chamfer Distance and point-to-face metrics.
  • Experimental results confirm DirDist's versatility in both rigid and non-rigid registrations, making it a practical tool for diverse 3D modeling tasks.

Introduction to DirDist: A New Metric for 3D Model Comparison

3D geometric models are at the heart of many applications, from computer graphics to robotics. For these applications to work seamlessly, a reliable method to measure the difference or discrepancy between two 3D models is essential. Traditionally, measures like Chamfer Distance (CD) and point-to-face (P2F) distances have been deployed, but they come with limitations. They either overlook the surface continuity or are computationally intensive. Researchers have now developed a novel distance metric called DirDist, which rethinks the approach to comparing 3D models by using an implicit representation known as the directional distance field (DDF).

Advantages of Directional Distance Fields

The DDF represents an implicit field constructed for any 3D model, capturing the local surface geometry without the need for direct point correspondence – a major bottleneck in earlier methods. This representation allows DirDist to associate reference points between models efficiently. Moreover, DirDist blends the advantages of both robustness and computational convenience, a blend not common with existing metrics.

Application to 3D Geometric Modeling Tasks

The practicality of DirDist has been tested across various fundamental 3D geometric modeling tasks, such as template surface fitting and registration - both rigid and non-rigid. Significantly, DirDist proves its versatility in both optimization-based and unsupervised learning-based contexts. When integrated into these tasks, DirDist not only speeds up the process but also achieves higher accuracy compared to conventional methods.

Experimentation and Results

The performance and efficiency of DirDist were thoroughly vetted through experiments involving the above mentioned 3D geometric modeling tasks. The researchers conducted comparative studies against widely used metrics such as CD, P2F, and Earth Mover’s Distance (EMD), which demonstrated the superiority of DirDist in terms of accuracy and computational resources required. Furthermore, extensive ablation studies confirm the robustness of DirDist across different settings and scenarios, including noisy and outlier-prone data.

Conclusion and Implications

The introduction of DirDist represents a significant advance in the field of 3D geometric modeling. Its ability to accurately, efficiently, and robustly handle the comparison of 3D models addresses many existing challenges. The source code for DirDist has been made publicly available, allowing researchers and developers to utilize this new metric for various 3D geometry processing tasks and innovate further based on this work. This could potentially lead to improvements in a wide array of technologies reliant on 3D modeling, from virtual reality to autonomous navigation.