Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

HybridMQA: Exploring Geometry-Texture Interactions for Colored Mesh Quality Assessment

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By fusing 3D graph features with aligned color projections, HybridMQA reports the most human-aligned quality scores for colored meshes tested.

desk verdict Solid hybrid MQA paper with a credible architecture and strong ablations, but the headline SOTA claim is undercut by mixing published baseline scores with your own evaluation protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01986 v2 pith:E4KJO5HU submitted 2024-12-02 cs.CV cs.MM

Armin Shafiee Sarvestani , Sheyang Tang , Zhou Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.MM
keywords meshqualityassessmentfull-referencegeometry-textureinteractiongraphconvolutionalnetworkcross-attentionprojection-basedmetriccolored3Dperceptual
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that colored mesh quality is best judged by combining both places where distortion lives: the 3D surface topology and the rendered 2D appearance. It introduces HybridMQA, a full-reference metric that extracts 3D surface features with a graph convolutional network, renders those features into the same six viewpoints as the mesh's color images, and uses cross-attention to let geometry and texture representations modify each other before scoring. The authors report that this hybrid outperforms eleven model-based and projection-based methods across four colored-mesh datasets, with the largest gains on distortions that change geometry or both geometry and texture. If HybridMQA is right, projection-only metrics miss geometry distortions visible only across viewpoints, while model-only metrics miss the final rendered appearance, and fusing the two closes both gaps.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a differentiable feature graph rendering that projects GCN-learned 3D surface features into 2D using the same six camera viewpoints and a Phong shader as the color renderings, giving pixel-to-pixel correspondence between geometry and appearance. A cross-attention module made of two transformer blocks, applied at five scales with alternating query and key-value roles, lets the two domains influence each other; the cross-attended scales are concatenated with the raw 3D feature embeddings to form the mesh quality representation. Patch selection discards patches with less than 10% non-background pixels, focusing the comparison on visible surface regions.

What would settle it

Take a distorted mesh whose most visible geometry artifact appears only from a viewpoint outside the six fixed perpendicular cameras, while the six standard views look near-identical to the reference; if HybridMQA then scores the distorted mesh almost as high as the reference, the fixed-viewpoint representation has missed a human-visible distortion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HybridMQA, a full-reference framework, achieves the best reported SRCC and PLCC correlations with mean opinion scores on the Nehmé et al., SJTU-TMQA, TSMD, and CMDM datasets by integrating model-based and projection-based information. The model branch turns texture, normal, and vertex maps into per-vertex features, refines them via graph convolution over mesh connectivity, and renders those 3D surface features into six perpendicular projections that are pixel-aligned with color renderings. Cross-attention blocks at five scales alternate the query and key-value roles of the two modalities, so texture can steer where geometry distortions matter and geometry can expose texture artifacts that flat projections hide. The final quality representation concatenates the cross-attended scales with direct 3D feature embeddings, and the absolute difference between reference and distorted representations is regressed to a quality score. Ablations show that removing the 3D branch drops SRCC from 0.892 to 0.820, and replacing cross-attention with addition, concatenation, multiplication, or self-attention drops SRCC to at most 0.852 on the Nehmé et al. dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that six fixed perpendicular viewpoints rendered with a simple Phong shader, with lighting chosen to match the subjective test setup and near-empty patches discarded, expose the same geometry-texture interactions that human viewers rely on when judging mesh quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HybridMQA reports higher SRCC and PLCC than all eleven compared model-based and projection-based baselines on the four test datasets, including PLCC gains of 6.5% over 3D-PSSIM on Nehmé et al. and 7.7% on SJTU-TMQA.
  • On texture-only distortions HybridMQA is comparable to Graphics-LPIPS, while on geometry-only and mixed geometry-texture distortions it shows the largest improvements, supporting the claim that 3D understanding drives the gains.
  • The cross-attention mechanism is essential: replacing it with addition, weighted addition, concatenation, elementwise multiplication, or self-attention drops SRCC from 0.892 to at most 0.852 on Nehmé et al.
  • Generalization experiments trained on Nehmé et al. or TSMD and tested on SJTU-TMQA show HybridMQA outperforming LPIPS and Graphics-LPIPS and matching a 3D-PSSIM model trained directly on the test set.
  • Because the feature rendering is differentiable, GradCAM on the 3D feature projections localizes geometry artifacts on the mesh surface, which could guide perceptually optimized mesh compression or restoration.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to replace the six fixed perpendicular viewpoints with saliency-weighted or free-viewing viewpoint sampling; if performance rises further, the fixed-view assumption is the bottleneck, and if it stays flat, the six views already capture the perceptually relevant content.
  • The same feature-rendering alignment could transfer to no-reference mesh quality and to point-cloud quality by training a regressor directly on the quality representation, directions the paper lists as future work.
  • A sharper separation of interaction effects would come from a synthetic experiment that varies texture complexity while holding a fixed geometry distortion; if cross-attention truly encodes geometry-texture interactions, the predicted quality gap should change with texture complexity even though the geometry distortion is identical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. HybridMQA proposes a full-reference colored mesh quality assessment method that combines a model-based 3D graph branch with a projection-based appearance branch. The 3D branch builds a feature graph from UV-aligned normal, vertex, and texture maps, processes it with a GCN, and renders the resulting vertex features into 2D projections aligned with six perpendicular colored renderings. Cross-attention modules then fuse the two projection streams, and the absolute difference of reference/distorted quality representations is regressed to a MOS. Experiments on Nehmé et al., SJTU-TMQA, TSMD, and CMDM report state-of-the-art SRCC/PLCC, with ablations on the cross-attention mechanism, model-branch components, augmentations, and viewpoint sampling. The paper also includes a cross-dataset generalization test and qualitative gMAD and GradCAM analyses.

Significance. If the results hold, HybridMQA is a useful step for colored mesh quality assessment: it explicitly couples a true 3D surface representation with rendered appearance, and the detailed ablations in Tables 3–5 and the supplementary material support the contribution of the proposed cross-attention design. The cross-dataset generalization evaluation in Table 2 is a valuable addition, as is the gMAD comparison. The public implementation promise, cross-validation without source-content overlap, and thorough reporting of training details are strengths. The central claim, however, is currently weakened by an internal inconsistency in how baseline methods were evaluated, which matters because the headline margins over 3D-PSSIM are computed against published scores rather than scores obtained under the paper's own protocol.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2 / Table 1] There is a direct contradiction between the protocol stated in Section 4.2 and the footnote under Table 1. Section 4.2 says 'all projection-based methods are evaluated under the same rendering settings as HybridMQA,' while Table 1 states that GeodesicPSIM, Fu et al., and 3D-PSSIM scores 'are reported directly from their publications as their implementations are not publicly available.' 3D-PSSIM is the second-best method on Nehmé et al. and SJTU-TMQA, and the claimed 6.5% and 7.7% PLCC gains are measured against it. Those published scores were obtained with 3D-PSSIM's own rendering, patch sampling, and fitting protocol, not with HybridMQA's six perpendicular views, Phong shading, 10% background patch filtering, 128/512 resolutions, source-disjoint 5-fold splits, and median-over-folds reporting. The advantage over 3D-PSSIM is therefore unverified under a common protocol, and the 'outperforms all ... across all datasets' claim is not supported by the evidence as presented. Please either re-run 3D-PSSIM (and the other cited methods with public implementations) under the same protocol, or explicitly rephrase the SOTA claim to acknowledge the protocol mismatch and report the comparison using published results as a separate row.
  2. [Table 1] The universality of the 'across all datasets' claim is limited by missing baseline entries that are not accounted for in the discussion. 3D-PSSIM has no TSMD row, GeodesicPSIM appears only on TSMD, and Fu et al. appears only on Nehmé et al. Consequently, on TSMD the strongest projection baseline is not compared, and on SJTU-TMQA the strongest model-based baselines are absent. This makes it possible that the 'outperforms all' conclusion is an artifact of which baselines happen to have publicly available numbers. Please report all baselines that can be obtained (or reimplemented) on all four datasets, and add a sentence explaining how missing entries affect the comparison.
  3. [§4.3 / Table 1] No variance or significance information is provided for the 5-fold results, despite the use of a median-over-folds protocol. On CMDM the margins over LPIPS are very small (SRCC 0.897 vs 0.865, PLCC 0.927 vs 0.925), and CMDM contains only five source meshes, so the difference may not be statistically meaningful. Please report per-fold scores or standard deviations, and if possible a paired significance test, for at least the main comparison in Table 1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3] The statement that rendering uses 'directional or ambient light to match the conditions of subjective tests' is ambiguous; please specify which dataset used which lighting configuration, or state that the same configuration was used throughout.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The 10% non-background patch threshold is introduced without justification or sensitivity analysis; a short ablation or a citation to a prior study would help.
  3. [Supplementary Table 7] The viewpoint-dropout ablation shows a large spread (SRCC 0.837–0.892 depending on number of viewpoints and batch size), so the choice of two viewpoints with batch size 8 is a meaningful hyperparameter; please describe this configuration clearly in the main text alongside the default training settings.
  4. [Figure 5] The distortion-type breakdown would be more informative with the number of samples per distortion type, since some distortion types may contain very few meshes and the SRCC/PLCC values could be noisy.
  5. [References] The reference list contains several formatting glitches, such as 'San Diega' in [15], 'V ol.2' in [46], and stray page numbers after some entries in the supplementary references; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: HybridMQA is an empirically trained model, and its claimed gains are measured on held-out folds; the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

HybridMQA is a supervised full-reference MQA method trained with MAE and rank loss against MOS (Eqs. 8-11); its reported SRCC/PLCC are computed under source-content-disjoint 5-fold cross-validation and cross-dataset generalization (Sec. 4.2, Table 2), so the target variable is not reintroduced as a fitted constant. The central claim that geometry-texture interactions help is supported by ablations on the model branch and cross-attention (Tables 3-5), not by a self-citation or by an equation that equals its own input. The rendering alignment (Sec. 3.3) is a design choice, not a derivation. Self-citations exist (refs. [25] and [34]) but are used for evaluation methodology (gMAD) and as a prior projection-based adaptation; neither is load-bearing. The Table 1 note that GeodesicPSIM, Fu et al. and 3D-PSSIM scores are taken from publications is a protocol-comparison caveat, not a circular step. Therefore no circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on MOS labels being valid ground truth, on the rendering protocol capturing human viewing conditions, and on the UV and graph representation carrying enough 3D information. No new physical entities are introduced. The listed hyperparameters are hand-chosen and not all are ablated, so they are the main free parameters of the empirical evaluation.

free parameters (6)
  • rank loss weight lambda = 1
    Eq. 11; set by hand, not ablated, balances MAE and rank loss in the final objective.
  • number of rendered viewpoints = 6
    Sec. 3.3; fixed six perpendicular cameras; training uses viewpoint dropout with 2 views (Supp 6.2), and performance varies with this choice (Supp Table 7).
  • patch background threshold = 10%
    Sec. 3.4, Eq. 5; patches with less than 10% non-background pixels are discarded; threshold is chosen by hand and not ablated.
  • rendering resolutions = 128x128 for feature projections, 512x512 for color projections
    Sec. 4.1; chosen so that 16x16 and 64x64 patches align; not ablated.
  • training epochs and batch size = 15 epochs, batch size 8 with 2 viewpoints
    Supp. 6.2; chosen given V100 memory; Supp Table 7 shows batch size affects performance.
  • camera angle augmentation standard deviation = 22.5 degrees
    Supp. 6.2; augmentation strength chosen by hand; Supp Table 6 shows augmentation affects results.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Human MOS values from the four datasets are valid ground truth for perceived mesh quality.
    The paper uses MOS as labels (Sec. 4.1) without questioning subjective test reliability; all quality correlations depend on this.
  • domain assumption Rendering from six perpendicular viewpoints with directional or ambient lighting approximates the viewing conditions under which MOS were collected.
    Sec. 3.3 states lights are chosen to match subjective tests; if viewpoint coverage or shading differs from human viewing, learned interactions may not transfer.
  • domain assumption UV-aligned normal, vertex, and texture 2D maps, together with mesh connectivity, capture enough 3D surface information for quality assessment.
    Sec. 3.1 and 3.2; the base encoder and GCN operate on these maps and the graph, relying on UV mapping quality and the GCN to handle vertex-neighborhood discontinuities in 2D maps.
  • domain assumption PyTorch3D differentiable rendering with a hard Phong shader preserves vertex feature values for feature projection.
    Sec. 3.3; feature graph rendering interpolates vertex features onto pixels with diffuse and specular reflectivity set to zero; if rendering alters the features, the alignment claim weakens.
  • standard math The graph convolution update in Eq. 3 and the transformer cross-attention operation work as described in their original papers.
    Standard operators adopted from Morris et al. and Vaswani et al.; no formal verification is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained ResNet50 provides useful quality-related features for rendered mesh projections.
    Sec. 4.1: the image encoder is ResNet50 pretrained on ImageNet; the method assumes these features transfer to colored mesh renderings, which is plausible but not demonstrated in the paper.
  • domain assumption UV coordinates are available and consistent for textured meshes, so features can be sampled from the base encoder output and rendered back to 2D without seams.
    Sec. 3.1 to 3.3; for CMDM vertex-color meshes the base encoder is skipped because they lack UV maps, so the model branch changes across datasets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HybridMQA: Exploring Geometry-Texture Interactions for Colored Mesh Quality Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4KJO5HU

@misc{pith2026241201986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HybridMQA: Exploring Geometry-Texture Interactions for Colored Mesh Quality Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4KJO5HU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01986}
}
read the original abstract

Mesh quality assessment (MQA) models play a critical role in the design, optimization, and evaluation of mesh operation systems in a wide variety of applications. Current MQA models, whether model-based methods using topology-aware features or projection-based approaches working on rendered 2D projections, often fail to capture the intricate interactions between texture and 3D geometry. We introduce HybridMQA, a first-of-its-kind hybrid full-reference colored MQA framework that integrates model-based and projection-based approaches, capturing complex interactions between textural information and 3D structures for enriched quality representations. Our method employs graph learning to extract detailed 3D representations, which are then projected to 2D using a novel feature rendering process that precisely aligns them with colored projections. This enables the exploration of geometry-texture interactions via cross-attention, producing comprehensive mesh quality representations. Extensive experiments demonstrate HybridMQA's superior performance across diverse datasets, highlighting its ability to effectively leverage geometry-texture interactions for a thorough understanding of mesh quality. Our implementation will be made publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interactions between texture and geometry. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reference and distorted meshes under geometry dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Overview of HybridMQA. In the model branch, a base encoder extracts 3D features from the mesh’s 2D maps, initializing a mesh graph. A GCN extracts 3D surface representations, which are rendered as 2D projections aligned with the colored projections from the texture branch. A quality encoder then captures geometry-texture interactions between the two branches, producing the final mesh quality representation. (b) … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The quality encoder. The 3D feature and color projections are divided into valid aligned patches and fed into respective encoders to obtain multiscale 3D surface and color representations. The cross-attention modules capture interactions between these rep￾resentati…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: GradCAM results on meshes in the model branch. High [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GradCAM before and after cross-attention. The two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: HybridMQA clearly outperforms Graphics-LPIPS [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: More GradCAM [35] results on meshes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: More GradCAM [35] results on meshes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: More GradCAM [35] results on cross-attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A blind mesh visual quality assessment method based on convolutional neural network

    Ilyass Abouelaziz, Aladine Chetouani, Mohammed El Has- souni, and Hocine Cherifi. A blind mesh visual quality assessment method based on convolutional neural network. Electronic Imaging, 30:1–5, 2018. 3

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    No-reference mesh visual quality assessment via ensemble of convolu- tional neural networks and compact multi-linear pooling

    Ilyass Abouelaziz, Aladine Chetouani, Mohammed El Has- souni, Longin Jan Latecki, and Hocine Cherifi. No-reference mesh visual quality assessment via ensemble of convolu- tional neural networks and compact multi-linear pooling. Pattern Recognition, 100:107174, 2020. 3

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Chapter 1 - introduction to immersive video tech- nologies

    Martin Alain, Emin Zerman, Cagri Ozcinar, and Giuseppe Valenzise. Chapter 1 - introduction to immersive video tech- nologies. In Immersive Video Technologies , pages 3–24. Academic Press, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Mesh: measuring errors between surfaces using the haus- dorff distance

    Nicolas Aspert, Diego Santa-Cruz, and Touradj Ebrahimi. Mesh: measuring errors between surfaces using the haus- dorff distance. In Proceedings. IEEE International Confer- ence on Multimedia and Expo , pages 705–708 vol.1, 2002. 2, 6, 7

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Metro: Measuring error on simplified surfaces

    Paolo Cignoni, Claudio Rocchini, and Roberto Scopigno. Metro: Measuring error on simplified surfaces. Computer Graphics Forum, 17(2):167–174, 1998. 2

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Measuring 3d video quality of experience (qoe) using a hybrid metric based on spatial reso- lution and depth cues

    Sahin Coskun, Gokce Nur Yilmaz, Federica Battisti, Musaed Alhussein, and Saiful Islam. Measuring 3d video quality of experience (qoe) using a hybrid metric based on spatial reso- lution and depth cues. Journal of Imaging, 9(12):281, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Sjtu-tmqa: A quality assessment database for static mesh with texture map

    Bingyang Cui, Qi Yang, Kaifa Yang, Yiling Xu, Xiaozhong Xu, and Shan Liu. Sjtu-tmqa: A quality assessment database for static mesh with texture map. In ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 7875–7879, 2024. 3, 6, 7, 1

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248–255, 2009. 6

    2009

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Surface-sampling based objective quality assessment metrics for meshes

    Chunyang Fu, Xiang Zhang, Thuong Nguyen-Canh, Xi- aozhong Xu, Ge Li, and Shan Liu. Surface-sampling based objective quality assessment metrics for meshes. In ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 1–5, 2023. 3, 6, 7

    2023

  2. [10]

    Heckbert

    Michael Garland and Paul S. Heckbert. Surface simpli- fication using quadric error metrics. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, page 209–216, USA, 1997. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 6

    1997

  3. [11]

    Draco 3d data compression

    Google. Draco 3d data compression. https://google. github.io/draco/. Accessed: 2024-09-04. 1, 6

    2024

  4. [12]

    Final report from the video quality experts group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment, phase II

    Video Quality Experts Group et al. Final report from the video quality experts group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment, phase II. VQEG, 2003. 6, 1

    2003

  5. [13]

    Subjective and objective visual quality assessment of textured 3d meshes.ACM Trans

    Jinjiang Guo, Vincent Vidal, Irene Cheng, Anup Basu, Atilla Baskurt, and Guillaume Lavoue. Subjective and objective visual quality assessment of textured 3d meshes.ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., 14(2), 2016. 2

    2016

  6. [14]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016. 6

    2016

  7. [15]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , San Diega, CA, USA,

  8. [16]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems. Curran Associates, Inc., 2012. 3

    2012

  9. [17]

    Samplenet: Dif- ferentiable point cloud sampling

    Itai Lang, Asaf Manor, and Shai Avidan. Samplenet: Dif- ferentiable point cloud sampling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7578–7588, 2020. 8

    2020

  10. [18]

    Perceptually driven 3d distance metrics with application to watermarking

    Guillaume Lavou ´e, Elisa Drelie Gelasca, Florent Dupont, Atilla Baskurt, and Touradj Ebrahimi. Perceptually driven 3d distance metrics with application to watermarking. Ap- plications of Digital Image Processing XXIX, 6312:63120L,

  11. [19]

    A multiscale metric for 3d mesh visual quality assessment

    Guillaume Lavou ´e. A multiscale metric for 3d mesh visual quality assessment. Computer Graphics Forum, 30(5):1427– 1437, 2011. 2, 6, 7

    2011

  12. [20]

    3d-pssim: Projective structural simi- larity for 3d mesh quality assessment robust to topological irregularities

    Seongmin Lee, Jiwoo Kang, Sanghoon Lee, Weisi Lin, and Alan Conrad Bovik. 3d-pssim: Projective structural simi- larity for 3d mesh quality assessment robust to topological irregularities. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, pages 1–16, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2024

  13. [21]

    Chapter 22 - social virtual reality (vr) applications and user experiences

    Jie Li and Pablo Cesar. Chapter 22 - social virtual reality (vr) applications and user experiences. In Immersive Video Technologies, pages 609–648. Academic Press, 2023. 1

    2023

  14. [22]

    One-2-3-45: Any single image to 3d mesh in 45 seconds without per-shape optimiza- tion

    Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Haian Jin, Linghao Chen, Mukund Varma T, Zexiang Xu, and Hao Su. One-2-3-45: Any single image to 3d mesh in 45 seconds without per-shape optimiza- tion. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024. 1

    2024

  15. [23]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 10012–10022, 2021. 3

    2021

  16. [24]

    Sgdr: Stochas- tic gradient descent with warm restarts

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Sgdr: Stochas- tic gradient descent with warm restarts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03983, 2016. 1

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Group maximum differentiation competition: Model com- parison with few samples

    Kede Ma, Zhengfang Duanmu, Zhou Wang, Qingbo Wu, Wentao Liu, Hongwei Yong, Hongliang Li, and Lei Zhang. Group maximum differentiation competition: Model com- parison with few samples. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 42(4):851–864, 2020. 8, 2

    2020

  18. [27]

    3d mesh compression: Survey, comparisons, and emerging trends

    Adrien Maglo, Guillaume Lavou ´e, Florent Dupont, and C´eline Hudelot. 3d mesh compression: Survey, comparisons, and emerging trends. ACM Comput. Surv., 47(3), 2015. 1

    2015

  19. [28]

    Hamilton, Jan Eric Lenssen, Gaurav Rattan, and Martin Grohe

    Christopher Morris, Martin Ritzert, Matthias Fey, William L. Hamilton, Jan Eric Lenssen, Gaurav Rattan, and Martin Grohe. Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher-order graph neural networks. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01):4602–4609, 2019. 4

    2019

  20. [29]

    Textured mesh quality assessment: Large-scale dataset and deep learning-based quality metric

    Yana Nehm ´e, Johanna Delanoy, Florent Dupont, Jean- Philippe Farrugia, Patrick Le Callet, and Guillaume Lavou´e. Textured mesh quality assessment: Large-scale dataset and deep learning-based quality metric. ACM Trans. Graph., 42 (3), 2023. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1

    2023

  21. [30]

    Visual quality of 3d meshes with diffuse colors in virtual reality: Subjective and objective evaluation

    Yana Nehm ´e, Florent Dupont, Jean-Philippe Farrugia, Patrick Le Callet, and Guillaume Lavou ´e. Visual quality of 3d meshes with diffuse colors in virtual reality: Subjective and objective evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics, 27(3):2202–2219...

    2021

  22. [31]

    Geoscaler: Geometry and rendering-aware downsampling of 3d mesh textures

    Sai Karthikey Pentapati, Anshul Rai, Arkady Ten, Chai- tanya Atluru, and Alan Bovik. Geoscaler: Geometry and rendering-aware downsampling of 3d mesh textures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16581, 2023. 4

    2023 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Accelerating 3d deep learning with pytorch3d

    Nikhila Ravi, Jeremy Reizenstein, David Novotny, Tay- lor Gordon, Wan-Yen Lo, Justin Johnson, and Georgia Gkioxari. Accelerating 3d deep learning with pytorch3d. arXiv:2007.08501, 2020. 4

    2007 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Depth cues in human visual perception and their realization in 3d displays

    Stephan Reichelt, Ralf H ¨aussler, Gerald F ¨utterer, and Nor- bert Leister. Depth cues in human visual perception and their realization in 3d displays. In Three-Dimensional Imag- ing, Visualization, and Display 2010 and Display Technolo- gies and Applications for Defense, Sec...

    2010

  25. [34]

    Per- ceptual crack detection for rendered 3d textured meshes

    Armin Shafiee Sarvestani, Wei Zhou, and Zhou Wang. Per- ceptual crack detection for rendered 3d textured meshes. In 2024 16th International Conference on Quality of Multime- dia Experience (QoMEX), pages 1–7, 2024. 3

    2024

  26. [35]

    Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization

    Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE in- ternational conference on computer vision , pages 618–626,

  27. [36]

    Sheikh and Alan C

    Hamid R. Sheikh and Alan C. Bovik. Image information and visual quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15 (2):430–444, 2006. 3, 6, 7

    2006

  28. [37]

    Meta 3d assetgen: Text-to-mesh generation with high- quality geometry, texture, and pbr materials

    Yawar Siddiqui, Tom Monnier, Filippos Kokkinos, Mahen- dra Kariya, Yanir Kleiman, Emilien Garreau, Oran Gafni, Natalia Neverova, Andrea Vedaldi, Roman Shapovalov, et al. Meta 3d assetgen: Text-to-mesh generation with high- quality geometry, texture, and pbr materials. arXiv pr...

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    A deep learning based no-reference quality assessment model for ugc videos

    Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, Wei Lu, and Guangtao Zhai. A deep learning based no-reference quality assessment model for ugc videos. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Multimedia, page 856–865, New York, NY , USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. 5, 6

    2022

  30. [39]

    3d modeling and com- puter graphics in virtual reality

    Yuk Ming Tang and Ho Lun Ho. 3d modeling and com- puter graphics in virtual reality. In mixed reality and three- dimensional computer graphics. IntechOpen, 2020. 1

    2020

  31. [40]

    Batex3: Bit allocation for progressive transmission of textured 3-d models

    Dihong Tian and Ghassan AlRegib. Batex3: Bit allocation for progressive transmission of textured 3-d models. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 18(1):23–35, 2008. 2

    2008

  32. [41]

    A cur- vature tensor distance for mesh visual quality assessment

    Fakhri Torkhani, Kai Wang, and Jean-Marc Chassery. A cur- vature tensor distance for mesh visual quality assessment. In International Conference on Computer Vision and Graphics, pages 253–263. Springer, 2012. 2

    2012

  33. [42]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates, Inc.,

  34. [43]

    Dihedral angle mesh error: a fast perception correlated distortion measure for fixed connectiv- ity triangle meshes

    Libor V ´aˇsa and Jan Rus. Dihedral angle mesh error: a fast perception correlated distortion measure for fixed connectiv- ity triangle meshes. Computer Graphics Forum, 31(5):1715– 1724, 2012. 2

    2012

  35. [44]

    A fast roughness-based approach to the assessment of 3d mesh vi- sual quality

    Kai Wang, Fakhri Torkhani, and Annick Montanvert. A fast roughness-based approach to the assessment of 3d mesh vi- sual quality. Computers & Graphics, 36(7):808–818, 2012. Augmented Reality Computer Graphics in China. 2, 6, 7

    2012

  36. [45]

    Zhou Wang and Alan C. Bovik. Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? a new look at signal fidelity measures. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 26(1):98–117, 2009. 3, 6, 7

    2009

  37. [46]

    Mul- tiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment

    Zhou Wang, Eero P Simoncelli, and Alan C Bovik. Mul- tiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In The Thrity-Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003, pages 1398–1402 V ol.2, 2003. 2

    2003

  38. [47]

    Bovik, Hamid R

    Zhou Wang, Alan C. Bovik, Hamid R. Sheikh, and Eero P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Pro- cessing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 3, 6, 7

    2004

  39. [48]

    Mnsr- net: multimodal transformer network for 3d surface super- resolution

    Wuyuan Xie, Tengcong Huang, and Miaohui Wang. Mnsr- net: multimodal transformer network for 3d surface super- resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 12703– 12712, 2022. 3

    2022

  40. [49]

    Tsmd: A database for static color mesh quality assessment study

    Qi Yang, Joel Jung, Haiqiang Wang, Xiaozhong Xu, and Shan Liu. Tsmd: A database for static color mesh quality assessment study. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Visual Communications and Image Processing (VCIP) , pages 1–5, 2023. 3, 6, 7, 1

    2023

  41. [50]

    Geodesicpsim: Predicting the quality of static mesh with texture map via geodesic patch similarity

    Qi Yang, Joel Jung, Xiaozhong Xu, and Shan Liu. Geodesicpsim: Predicting the quality of static mesh with texture map via geodesic patch similarity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04928, 2023. 2, 3, 6, 7

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Young, N´eill O’Dwyer, and Aljosa Smolic

    Gareth W. Young, N´eill O’Dwyer, and Aljosa Smolic. Chap- ter 21 - volumetric video as a novel medium for creative sto- rytelling. In Immersive Video Technologies, pages 591–607. Academic Press, 2023. 1

    2023

  43. [52]

    GraphSAINT: Graph sampling based inductive learning method

    Hanqing Zeng, Hongkuan Zhou, Ajitesh Srivastava, Raj- gopal Kannan, and Viktor Prasanna. GraphSAINT: Graph sampling based inductive learning method. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. 8

    2020

  44. [53]

    Decoupling the depth and scope of graph neural networks

    Hanqing Zeng, Muhan Zhang, Yinglong Xia, Ajitesh Srivas- tava, Andrey Malevich, Rajgopal Kannan, Viktor Prasanna, Long Jin, and Ren Chen. Decoupling the depth and scope of graph neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:19665–19679, 2021. 8

    2021

  45. [54]

    Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2018. 3, 6, 7

    2018

  46. [55]

    No-reference quality assessment for 3d colored point cloud and mesh models.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32(11):7618– 7631, 2022

    Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, Tao Wang, Wei Lu, and Guangtao Zhai. No-reference quality assessment for 3d colored point cloud and mesh models.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32(11):7618– 7631, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  47. [56]

    Mm-pcqa: Multi-modal learning for no-reference point cloud quality assessment

    Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Xiongkuo Min, Qiyuan Wang, Jun He, Quan Zhou, and Guangtao Zhai. Mm-pcqa: Multi-modal learning for no-reference point cloud quality assessment. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23 , p...

    2023

  48. [57]

    Gms-3dqa: Projection-based grid mini-patch sampling for 3d model quality assessment.ACM Trans

    Zicheng Zhang, Wei Sun, Haoning Wu, Yingjie Zhou, Chunyi Li, Zijian Chen, Xiongkuo Min, Guangtao Zhai, and Weisi Lin. Gms-3dqa: Projection-based grid mini-patch sampling for 3d model quality assessment.ACM Trans. Mul- timedia Comput. Commun. Appl., 20(6), 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  49. [58]

    Lmm-pcqa: Assisting point cloud quality assessment with lmm

    Zicheng Zhang, Haoning Wu, Yingjie Zhou, Chunyi Li, Wei Sun, Chaofeng Chen, Xiongkuo Min, Xiaohong Liu, Weisi Lin, and Guangtao Zhai. Lmm-pcqa: Assisting point cloud quality assessment with lmm. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 7783–...

    2024

  50. [59]

    Blind quality assessment of dense 3d point clouds with structure guided resampling

    Wei Zhou, Qi Yang, Wu Chen, Qiuping Jiang, Guangtao Zhai, and Weisi Lin. Blind quality assessment of dense 3d point clouds with structure guided resampling. ACM Trans- actions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Ap- plications, 2024. 2

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.