The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The princeton shape benchmark
Abstract
In recent years, many shape representations and geometric algorithms have been proposed for matching 3D shapes. Usually, each algorithm is tested on a different (small) database of 3D models, and thus no direct comparison is available for competing methods. We describe the Princeton Shape Benchmark (PSB), a publicly available database of polygonal models collected from the World Wide Web and a suite of tools for comparing shape matching and classification algorithms. One feature of the benchmark is that it provides multiple semantic labels for each 3D model. For instance, it includes one classification of the 3D models based on function, another that considers function and form, and others based on how the object was constructed (e.g., man-made versus natural objects). We find that experiments with these classifications can expose different properties of shape-based retrieval algorithms. For example, out of 12 shape descriptors tested, extended Gaussian images by B. Horn (1984) performed best for distinguishing man-made from natural objects, while they performed among the worst for distinguishing specific object types. Based on experiments with several different shape descriptors, we conclude that no single descriptor is best for all classifications, and thus the main contribution of this paper is to provide a framework to determine the conditions under which each descriptor performs best.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The YCB object and model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research
Calli, B., Singh, A., Walsman, A., Srinivasa, S., Abbeel, P., & Dollar, A. M. (2015) · 2015 International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR) · doi:10.1109/icar.2015.7251504 · Cited by 838
Unsupervised feature learning for 3D scene labeling
Lai, K., Bo, L., & Fox, D. (2014) · 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra.2014.6907298 · Cited by 317
A dynamical system approach to realtime obstacle avoidance
Khansari-Zadeh, S. M., & Billard, A. (2012) · Autonomous Robots · doi:10.1007/s10514-012-9287-y · Cited by 264
Retrieving articulated 3-D models using medial surfaces
Siddiqi, K., Zhang, J., Macrini, D., Shokoufandeh, A., Bouix, S., & Dickinson, S. (2008) · Machine Vision and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00138-007-0097-8 · Cited by 256
Open X-Embodiment: Robotic Learning Datasets and RT-X Models : Open X-Embodiment Collaboration 0
O’Neill, A., Rehman, A., Maddukuri, A., Gupta, A., Padalkar, A., Lee, A., Pooley, A., Gupta, A., Mandlekar, A., Jain, A., et al. (2024) · 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10611477 · Cited by 210
Metadata
- Authors
- Shilane, P., Min, P., Kazhdan, M., & Funkhouser, T.
- Venue
- Proceedings Shape Modeling Applications, 2004.
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2004-11-12
- Pages
- 167-388
- OpenAlex
- W2099789128
- Cited by
- 1,419
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 148.35
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The princeton shape benchmark. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/smi.2004.1314504
- The paper
- Shilane, P., Min, P., Kazhdan, M., & Funkhouser, T. (2004). The princeton shape benchmark. Proceedings Shape Modeling Applications, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1109/smi.2004.1314504
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.