Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Benjamin Molloy

dblp:344/1679 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Geometric modeling and processing · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Geometric modeling and processing › mesh processing
shape repair
0.712023
Fantastic Breaks: A Dataset of Paired 3D Scans of Real-World Broken Objects and Their Complete Counterparts · CVPR 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

learning-based shape repair · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Fantastic Breaks: A Dataset of Paired 3D Scans of Real-World Broken Objects and Their Complete Counterparts
abstract
Automated shape repair approaches currently lack access to datasets that describe real-world damaged geometry. We present Fantastic Breaks (and Where to Find Them: https://terascale-all-sensing-research-studio.github.io/FantasticBreaks), a dataset containing scanned, waterproofed, and cleaned 3D meshes for 150 broken objects, paired and geometrically aligned with complete counterparts. Fantastic Breaks contains class and material labels, proxy repair parts that join to broken meshes to generate complete meshes, and manually annotated fracture boundaries. Through a detailed analysis of fracture geometry, we reveal differences between Fantastic Breaks and synthetic fracture datasets generated using geometric and physics-based methods. We show experimental shape repair evaluation with Fantastic Breaks using multiple learning-based approaches pre-trained with synthetic datasets and re-trained with subset of Fantastic Breaks.
Nikolas Lamb, Cameron Palmer, Benjamin Molloy, Sean Banerjee, Natasha Kholgade
CVPR3