mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On Unsupervised Partial Shape Correspondence

arXiv 2310.14692 ↗First posted 23 Oct 2023cs.CVcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While dealing with matching shapes to their parts, we often apply a tool known as functional maps. The idea is to translate the shape matching problem into "convenient" spaces by which matching is performed algebraically by solving a least squares problem. Here, we argue that such formulations, though popular in this field, introduce errors in the estimated match when partiality is invoked. Such errors are unavoidable even for advanced feature extraction networks, and they can be shown to escalate with increasing degrees of shape partiality, adversely affecting the learning capability of such systems. To circumvent these limitations, we propose a novel approach for partial shape matching. Our study of functional maps led us to a novel method that establishes direct correspondence between partial and full shapes through feature matching bypassing the need for functional map intermediate spaces. The Gromov Distance between metric spaces leads to the construction of the first part of our loss functions. For regularization we use two options: a term based on the area preserving property of the mapping, and a relaxed version that avoids the need to resort to functional maps. The proposed approach shows superior performance on the SHREC'16 dataset, outperforming existing unsupervised methods for partial shape matching.Notably, it achieves state-of-the-art results on the SHREC'16 HOLES benchmark, superior also compared to supervised methods. We demonstrate the benefits of the proposed unsupervised method when applied to a new dataset PFAUST for part-to-full shape correspondence.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Oct 2023.

Builds on

19 of 43 references.

References · 19

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  2. 2016SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restartscited by 4,993
  3. 2017Deep Functional Maps: Structured Prediction for Dense Shape Correspondencecited by 134
  4. 2020Deep Geometric Functional Maps: Robust Feature Learning for Shape Correspondencecited by 125
  5. 2018Unsupervised Deep Learning for Structured Shape Matchingcited by 81
  6. 2021NeuroMorph: Unsupervised Shape Interpolation and Correspondence in One Gocited by 81
  7. 2018Continuous and Orientation-preserving Correspondences via Functional Mapscited by 77
  8. 2015Partial Functional Correspondencecited by 61
  9. 2021DPFM: Deep Partial Functional Mapscited by 58
  10. 2023Unsupervised Learning of Robust Spectral Shape Matchingcited by 57
  11. 2020Correspondence Learning via Linearly-invariant Embeddingcited by 48
  12. 2019Cyclic Functional Mapping: Self-supervised correspondence between non-isometric deformable shapescited by 30
7 more
  1. 2020Structured Regularization of Functional Map Computationscited by 26
  2. 2023Understanding and Improving Features Learned in Deep Functional Mapscited by 20
  3. 2014On the optimality of shape and data representation in the spectral domaincited by 14
  4. 2022SRFeat: Learning Locally Accurate and Globally Consistent Non-Rigid Shape Correspondencecited by 13
  5. 2013Spectral Generalized Multi-Dimensional Scalingcited by 11
  6. 2019Correspondence-Free Region Localization for Partial Shape Similarity via Hamiltonian Spectrum Alignmentcited by 11
  7. 2020Unsupervised Scale-Invariant Multispectral Shape Matchingcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 5; 2026: 4.

11 papers.