An AI Approach for Learning the Spectrum of the Laplace-Beltrami Operator

Enrique del Castillo; Yulin An

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

An AI Approach for Learning the Spectrum of the Laplace-Beltrami Operator

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A graph network learns Laplace-Beltrami spectra and predicts them 5 times faster than finite elements.

desk verdict A useful, well-documented surrogate for LB spectra on real CAD meshes, undermined mainly by an ambiguous train/test split that could inflate the headline accuracy. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07073 v1 pith:7H3QENRN submitted 2025-07-09 cs.CV cs.AI

Yulin An , Enrique del Castillo This is my paper

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords Laplace-BeltramispectrumgraphconvolutionalnetworkCADmodelseigenvaluepredictionoperatorlearninggeometricdeepmeshfeatures

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

The paper argues that the Laplace-Beltrami spectrum of a triangulated CAD mesh is a learnable geometric feature, not something that must be recomputed with an eigenvalue solver every time. It trains a graph convolutional network (GCN) on tens of thousands of real mechanical CAD parts to output eigenvalues 2 through 50, and reports that the trained network matches finite-element accuracy on 99.3% of test parts while taking about 5 times less time on a CPU and two orders of magnitude less on a GPU. If correct, repeated spectral computations in CAD retrieval, inspection, and quality control could be replaced by a single forward pass.

What carries the argument

The method uses a graph convolutional kernel of the form $x'_i = W_1 x_i + W_2 \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} e_{j,i} x_j$, where edge weights are normalized edge lengths, applied through three GCN blocks with 64, 128, and 256 hidden channels, followed by global mean pooling and a five-layer MLP with widths 8192, 4096, 2048, 1024, and 49. The input features are normalized edge lengths, mixed Voronoi areas, unweighted discrete Gaussian and mean curvatures, and principal curvatures, chosen to capture local and global geometry while avoiding redundancy. The relative percentage difference loss, which is scale-invariant, is used to train the network, and the architecture directly maps a mesh to a 49-dimensional spectral vector.

What would settle it

Retrain the same pipeline but split by original mesh identity, putting all five rotations of each part into the same fold, then evaluate PSNR>40 on held-out parts; if accuracy drops substantially below 99.3%, the claimed generalization to new parts is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a GCN with a carefully chosen set of per-vertex geometric features can directly predict the 2nd to 50th Laplace-Beltrami eigenvalues of single-component, boundary-free, genus-less-than-3 mechanical CAD meshes. The paper reports 99.3% of 16,421 test samples achieve PSNR greater than 40, with average inference times of 0.023 seconds on CPU and 0.001 seconds on GPU, compared to 0.105 seconds for a linear finite-element solver on CPU. This is presented as demonstrating that the LB spectrum is learnable and that the learned surrogate is practical for repetitive industrial applications.

Load-bearing premise

The 80:10:10 split appears to be applied after the five-fold rotation augmentation, so rotated copies of the same physical part can appear in both training and test sets, and the reported 99.3% accuracy depends on this split not leaking part identity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

LB spectra of new CAD parts can be obtained without solving a generalized eigenvalue problem, making spectral analysis feasible in real-time inspection and retrieval.
The trained network serves as a reusable descriptor extractor: the 49 predicted eigenvalues can act as a compact shape fingerprint for downstream geometric deep learning tasks.
Inference cost is largely independent of the mesh's vertex count, so the speed advantage over FEM grows for larger meshes.
The paper's results suggest that extending the approach to higher eigenvalues and more complex topologies is a matter of scaling the architecture and training data.
The released code, trained model, and curated dataset allow others to reproduce or retrain the surrogate without repeating the full FEM labeling process.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported 99.3% accuracy depends on whether the data split was performed on the 164,205 rotation-augmented samples or on the 32,841 original meshes; the paper is ambiguous, but the test size of 16,421 suggests the split includes rotated copies, which could leak per-mesh identity into the test set.
If the split leaks identity, the headline accuracy may reflect recognition of rotations of training parts rather than generalization to unseen parts; a mesh-identity split is the natural stress test.
The CPU speedup of 5x is modest, while the GPU speedup is large, but no GPU timing for the linear FEM baseline is given, so the fair GPU comparison is incomplete.
The PSNR>40 threshold is defined relative to the range of the spectrum, so high PSNR does not guarantee tight absolute accuracy on the smallest eigenvalues; application-specific tolerance should be checked.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid engineering contribution that extends Wu et al. [18] from 10 eigenvalues on synthetic shapes to 50 eigenvalues on 32,841 real mechanical CAD meshes, and it ships code and data. The main thing to check before believing the 99.3% number is whether the 80:10:10 split is per unique mesh or per rotation-augmented sample. The paper doesn't say, and that matters.

What's genuinely new: the curated ABC subset, the 50-eigenvalue target, the feature study (unweighted curvatures help, shown on the synthetic benchmark), and the released trained model and dataset. That is real value for people who need fast repeated spectrum estimates in retrieval or quality control. The speedups (5x CPU, ~100x GPU) are plausible as order-of-magnitude claims, though the GPU comparison pits the GCN on an A100 against FEM on a CPU, which is not apples-to-apples.

The soft spots, in order of importance. First, the split ambiguity. Section 4.1 says five rotations per mesh produce 164,205 samples; Section 4.4 says only that 'the dataset' was randomly partitioned 80:10:10. If the partition operates on the 164,205 augmented samples, then for any mesh the chance that at least one of its five rotated copies lands in the test set is about 41%, and almost every such mesh also has a training copy. Since rotations leave the LB spectrum unchanged, the network can memorize those spectra, and the 99.3% test accuracy would mostly measure recognition of seen shapes, not generalization to new parts. That is load-bearing. The released code makes this check trivial; the authors should state the split level explicitly and, if needed, re-run with a per-mesh split.

Second, the PSNR>40 threshold is permissive for high eigenvalues: a 40 dB PSNR on a spectrum whose values span four orders of magnitude permits large absolute errors on the 50th eigenvalue. The paper would be stronger with per-eigenvalue error tables (e.g., median relative error for λ_2, λ_10, λ_25, λ_50). Third, the final architecture was selected using the test set (Section 4.5 reports test performance for each candidate), so the headline 99.3% contains some selection bias. That is common but should be acknowledged.

I don't share the reader's circularity concern: using FEM labels as both training target and evaluation reference is the normal setup for a surrogate model, and the paper does not claim the GCN discovers the true spectrum better than FEM. The limitations section is honest about scope (genus < 3, single component, up to 50 eigenvalues).

Bottom line: a worthwhile empirical paper with a potentially serious but easily fixable ambiguity. It deserves a proper review, with a request to clarify the split, report per-eigenvalue errors, and provide a same-hardware timing comparison. If the split is per mesh, I'd expect the result to hold up in substance.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a graph convolutional network that takes a triangulated CAD mesh as input and predicts the 2nd through 50th Laplace-Beltrami eigenvalues, bypassing an FEM eigen-solver. The authors curate 32,841 single-component, genus-less-than-3 meshes from the ABC dataset, augment them with five random rotations each, and train a GCN with edge-length and curvature features under an RPD loss. They report 99.3% of test predictions achieving PSNR>40 and an average CPU speedup of about 5x over LaPy's linear FEM, with much larger GPU speedups.

Significance. If the accuracy and speedup claims survive scrutiny, the contribution is practically useful: a learned surrogate for repeated LB-spectrum computation would benefit CAD retrieval, inspection, and statistical process control. The strengths are the large curated real-CAD dataset, the release of code and data, the comparison against a standard FEM solver, and a systematic architecture search. However, the central accuracy claim depends on an ambiguous train/test split and on a PSNR threshold that can mask large errors on the lower part of the spectrum, so the evidence as presented is not yet conclusive.

major comments (4)

[§4.1 and §4.4] The 80:10:10 partition is applied to the 164,205 rotation-augmented samples, not to the 32,841 unique meshes: the reported test size is 16,421, which is 10% of 164,205. Because five random rotations of the same mesh produce identical LB spectra, a sample-level split puts copies of the same mesh on both sides of the train/test boundary for roughly 41% of meshes (P(no test copy) = 0.9^5). The reported 99.3% PSNR>40 accuracy could therefore largely reflect recognition of near-duplicate geometries already seen in training. The authors must re-run the evaluation with a mesh-level split, ensuring that all five rotations of a given mesh stay in the same fold, and report the accuracy on unseen meshes.
[§4.3, Eq. (16)] The PSNR metric is dominated by the largest eigenvalue because the numerator uses (max(y)-min(y))^2 over the full spectrum. For a normalized mesh with λ50 on the order of 5e5 and λ2 on the order of 1e2, a large PSNR can be achieved even when the smallest eigenvalues are predicted with very large relative error. The hand-set threshold PSNR>40 is therefore not a reliable indicator of 'accurate' spectrum prediction. The authors should report per-eigenvalue relative errors (e.g., RPD or relative error for each λi) and justify why PSNR>40 is the appropriate accuracy criterion.
[§4.5, Tables 3-4 and final accuracy] The final architecture and learning-rate schedule were selected based on the same PSNR>40 metric computed on the 16,421 test samples, and the same test set is then used to report the 99.3% figure. This selection-on-test protocol inflates the reported accuracy. The authors should use the validation set for architecture selection and report test-set performance only for the final model, once.
[§4.5, Figure 9] The claimed 5x CPU speedup compares the GCN 'prediction' time with the full LaPy FEM solve time, but it is not stated whether the 0.023-second GCN time includes feature extraction (curvatures, Voronoi areas, edge lengths) and any mesh preprocessing. For a new part, those steps are part of the proposed pipeline and must be included for a fair end-to-end timing comparison.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and §4.1] The abstract and Section 1 say 'more than 33,000' models, but the final curated dataset has 32,841 meshes after filtering; the wording should be corrected for consistency.
[§4.3] There is a typo: 'We used PSRN only to assess...' should read 'PSNR'.
[§2] In the related-work discussion, 'GNCs' should be 'GCNs'.
[§3.3, Table 1] The preliminary feature-selection study uses a PSNR>20 threshold, while the remainder of the paper uses PSNR>40; the reason for this difference should be stated so readers can interpret the preliminary comparison.
[§3.2, Eq. (8)] The mixed Voronoi area formula is written with A_i on the left but the right-hand side is a sum over edges; clarifying that A_ij denotes triangle area and citing the exact libigl routine would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GCN-to-FEM-spectrum surrogate is a standard supervised setup, with only experimental data-split and model-selection caveats.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a supervised regression: mesh geometry, hand-coded differential-geometric features, a GCN, and a 49-dimensional output trained against eigenvalues computed by linear FEM. This is a normal surrogate-model construction, not a circular reduction. The network is never handed the target eigenvalues, the FEM stiffness/mass matrices, or an analytic formula for the spectrum; the features (curvatures, edge lengths, Voronoi areas) are informative but do not by themselves determine the spectrum in a way that makes the learned output equal to the input by construction. Evaluation also compares against the same FEM solver that generated the labels, which is standard for learned surrogates and does not imply circularity. The few self-citations ([4], [5], [27]) appear in application, context, or implementation remarks and are not used to justify the central learnability claim; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The main caveats are experimental rather than circular: Section 4.4 does not specify whether the 80:10:10 split is applied per rotation-augmented sample or per original mesh, so five rotated copies of the same mesh could straddle the train/test boundary and inflate the reported 99.3%; and Section 4.5 selects the best model using the PSNR>40 metric on the test set, so the final percentage is not a fully unbiased generalization estimate. These are validity risks, not definitional equivalences, and do not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard spectral theory plus the empirical assumption that FEM labels on remeshed low-genus parts are a learnable target. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free choices are the trained weights and a permissive accuracy threshold; the load-bearing domain risk is the train/test split after rotation augmentation.

free parameters (3)

Trained GCN/MLP weights = learned from 164,205 augmented samples
The predictive model is a fitted regressor; the reported accuracy is empirical and depends on these learned parameters.
PSNR accuracy threshold = 40 dB
Hand-chosen criterion defining 'accurate' (Section 4.3); the 99.3% figure is computed with this threshold.
MLP first-layer width = 8192
Selected by comparing test-set performance (Section 4.5); this hyperparameter affects both accuracy and inference time.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The discrete FEM spectrum of the remeshed mesh is an adequate proxy for the true LB spectrum.
Labels are produced by LaPy linear FEM on remeshed models (Section 4.1); the paper does not quantify FEM's own discretization error.
domain assumption The 80:10:10 split over augmented samples preserves generalization validity.
If the split is per sample, rotated copies of the same mesh appear in both train and test, invalidating out-of-shape generalization (Sections 4.1, 4.4).
domain assumption Input features (coordinates, normalized edges, Voronoi areas, unweighted curvatures) are sufficient to learn the spectrum.
The GCN's predictive capacity depends on this feature set (Section 3.2); the feature ablation in Section 3.3 is only on a synthetic 10-class dataset.
ad hoc to paper The PSNR>40 rule characterizes 'accurate' predictions.
This is the authors' chosen threshold (Section 4.3), not a standard error bound; it permits large absolute errors on high eigenvalues.
standard math LB spectrum is scale-equivariant and rotation-invariant as used in normalization.
Used to normalize meshes to a unit cube and post-multiply predictions by the scale factor (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An AI Approach for Learning the Spectrum of the Laplace-Beltrami Operator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7H3QENRN

@misc{pith2026250707073,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An AI Approach for Learning the Spectrum of the Laplace-Beltrami Operator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7H3QENRN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07073}
}

read the original abstract

The spectrum of the Laplace-Beltrami (LB) operator is central in geometric deep learning tasks, capturing intrinsic properties of the shape of the object under consideration. The best established method for its estimation, from a triangulated mesh of the object, is based on the Finite Element Method (FEM), and computes the top k LB eigenvalues with a complexity of O(Nk), where N is the number of points. This can render the FEM method inefficient when repeatedly applied to databases of CAD mechanical parts, or in quality control applications where part metrology is acquired as large meshes and decisions about the quality of each part are needed quickly and frequently. As a solution to this problem, we present a geometric deep learning framework to predict the LB spectrum efficiently given the CAD mesh of a part, achieving significant computational savings without sacrificing accuracy, demonstrating that the LB spectrum is learnable. The proposed Graph Neural Network architecture uses a rich set of part mesh features - including Gaussian curvature, mean curvature, and principal curvatures. In addition to our trained network, we make available, for repeatability, a large curated dataset of real-world mechanical CAD models derived from the publicly available ABC dataset used for training and testing. Experimental results show that our method reduces computation time of the LB spectrum by approximately 5 times over linear FEM while delivering competitive accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07073 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of a first-order neighbor of a vertex, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Structure of a GCN block. A single GCN block is composed by 1) a Graph Convo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: : GCN architecture for learning the 2nd to 50th eigenvalues of the Laplace-Beltrami [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: : Sample predictions of the 2nd to 50th Laplace-Beltrami (LB) eigenvalues and their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: : Prediction times on a CPU for each part in the testing dataset (16,421 CAD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: : RPD losses for training data and validation data. The model was first trained for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: : Distribution of PSNR values for predictions on 16,421 testing samples using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: : Computation time comparison of Linear FEM and GCN model predictions (CPU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[18]

Graph convolutional networks for learn- ing laplace-beltrami operators,

Y. Wu, R. Fu, R. Peng, and Q. Chen, “Graph convolutional networks for learn- ing laplace-beltrami operators,” in ICML 2024 Workshop on Geometry-grounded Representation Learning and Generative Modeling, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=K2L88RnYl7

work page 2024
[1]

Laplace–beltrami spectra as ‘shape-dna’ of surfaces and solids,

M. Reuter, F.-E. Wolter, and N. Peinecke, “Laplace–beltrami spectra as ‘shape-dna’ of surfaces and solids,” Computer-Aided Design, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 342–366, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Three-dimensional cad model matching with anisotropic diffusion maps,

X. Lin, K. Zhu, and Q.-G. Wang, “Three-dimensional cad model matching with anisotropic diffusion maps,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 265–274, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Deep wavelet neural pro- cess: Modeling stochastic variation of non-euclidean functional data for manufacturing qual- ity inference,

Y. Wang, S. Wang, B. Yang, L. Zhou, Z. Shi, L. Yi, and L. Kang, “Deep wavelet neural pro- cess: Modeling stochastic variation of non-euclidean functional data for manufacturing qual- ity inference,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 5125–5136, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

An intrinsic geometrical approach for statistical process control of surface and manifold data,

X. Zhao and E. Del Castillo, “An intrinsic geometrical approach for statistical process control of surface and manifold data,” Technometrics, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 295–312, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

A registration-free approach for statistical process control of 3d scanned objects via fem,

X. Zhao and E. del Castillo, “A registration-free approach for statistical process control of 3d scanned objects via fem,” Precision Engineering, vol. 74, pp. 247–263, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Chavel, Eigenvalues in Riemannian geometry

I. Chavel, Eigenvalues in Riemannian geometry. Academic Press, 1984

work page 1984
[7]

Rosenberg, The Laplacian on a Riemannian Manifold: An Introduction to Analysis on Manifolds

S. Rosenberg, The Laplacian on a Riemannian Manifold: An Introduction to Analysis on Manifolds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997

work page 1997

Show all 30 references

[8]

Brainprint: A discriminative characterization of brain morphology,

C. Wachinger, P. Golland, W. Kremen, B. Fischl, M. Reuter, A. D. N. Initiative et al., “Brainprint: A discriminative characterization of brain morphology,” NeuroImage, vol. 109, pp. 232–248, 2015

2015
[9]

Abc: A big cad model dataset for geometric deep learning,

S. Koch, A. Matveev, Z. Jiang, F. Williams, A. Artemov, E. Burnaev, M. Alexa, D. Zorin, and D. Panozzo, “Abc: A big cad model dataset for geometric deep learning,” in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2019

2019
[10]

Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural net- works with arbitrary activation functions and its application to dynamical systems,

T. Chen and H. Chen, “Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural net- works with arbitrary activation functions and its application to dynamical systems,” IEEE transactions on neural networks, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 911–917, 1995

1995
[11]

Operator learning: Algorithms and analysis,

N. B. Kovachki, S. Lanthaler, and A. M. Stuart, “Operator learning: Algorithms and analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15715, 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

Syncspeccnn: Synchronized spectral cnn for 3d shape segmentation,

L. Yi, H. Su, X. Guo, and L. Guibas, “Syncspeccnn: Synchronized spectral cnn for 3d shape segmentation,” in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2017, pp. 6584–6592

2017
[13]

Pointwise convolutional neural networks,

B.-S. Hua, M.-K. Tran, and S.-K. Yeung, “Pointwise convolutional neural networks,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 984–993, 2018

2018
[14]

View-based 3-d cad model retrieval with deep residual networks,

C. Zhang, G. Zhou, H. Yang, Z. Xiao, and X. Yang, “View-based 3-d cad model retrieval with deep residual networks,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 2335–2345, 2020

2020
[15]

Learning geometric operators on meshes,

Y. Wang, V. Kim, M. Bronstein, and J. Solomon, “Learning geometric operators on meshes,” Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds 2019 (ICLR workshop), 2019

2019
[16]

Deep learning on geometry representations,

D. Smirnov, “Deep learning on geometry representations,” Ph.D. dissertation, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, 2022

2022
[17]

Geometric deep learning: going beyond euclidean data,

M. M. Bronstein, J. Bruna, Y. LeCun, A. Szlam, and P. Vandergheynst, “Geometric deep learning: going beyond euclidean data,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 18–42, 2017

2017
[19]

Discrete differential-geometry operators for triangulated 2-manifolds,

M. Meyer, M. Desbrun, P. Schr¨ oder, and A. H. Barr, “Discrete differential-geometry operators for triangulated 2-manifolds,” Visualization and Mathematics III, pp. 35–57, 2003

2003
[20]

libigl: A simple C++ geometry processing library,

A. Jacobson, D. Panozzo et al., “libigl: A simple C++ geometry processing library,” 2018, https://libigl.github.io/

2018
[21]

J.-L. Mari, F. H´ etroy-Wheeler, and G. Subsol, Geometric and Topological Mesh Feature 17 Extraction for 3D Shape Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2019

2019
[22]

Efficient multi-scale curvature and crease es- timation,

D. Panozzo, E. Puppo, and L. Rocca, “Efficient multi-scale curvature and crease es- timation,” in 2nd International Workshop on Computer Graphics, Computer Vision and Mathematics, GraVisMa, 2010, pp. 9–16

2010
[23]

Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher-order graph neural networks,

C. Morris, M. Ritzert, M. Fey, W. L. Hamilton, J. E. Lenssen, G. Rattan, and M. Grohe, “Weisfeiler and leman go neural: Higher-order graph neural networks,” 2021. [Online]. Avail- able: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.02244

2021 arXiv
[24]

Wide neural networks of any depth evolve as linear models under gradient descent,

J. Lee, L. Xiao, S. Schoenholz, Y. Bahri, R. Novak, J. Sohl-Dickstein, and J. Penning- ton, “Wide neural networks of any depth evolve as linear models under gradient descent,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

2019
[25]

Fit without fear: remarkable mathematical phenomena of deep learning through the prism of interpolation,

M. Belkin, “Fit without fear: remarkable mathematical phenomena of deep learning through the prism of interpolation,” Acta Numerica, vol. 30, pp. 203–248, 2021

2021
[26]

Pymeshlab,

A. Muntoni and P. Cignoni, “Pymeshlab,” Zenodo, Jan. 2021, accessed: Mar. 2025

2021
[27]

Practical implementation of an end-to-end spectral method- ology for statistical process control of 3-d part geometry: A case study,

Y. An and E. Del Castillo, “Practical implementation of an end-to-end spectral method- ology for statistical process control of 3-d part geometry: A case study,” arXiv 6343935, (submitted for publication)., 2025

2025
[28]

Trimesh,

M. Dawson-Haggerty and Others, “Trimesh,” https://trimesh.org/, Dec. 2019, accessed: Mar. 2025

2019
[29]

A pragmatic view of accuracy measurement in forecasting,

B. E. Flores, “A pragmatic view of accuracy measurement in forecasting,” Omega, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 93–98, 1986

1986
[30]

Peak signal-to-noise ratio revisited: Is simple beautiful?

J. Korhonen and J. You, “Peak signal-to-noise ratio revisited: Is simple beautiful?” in 2012 Fourth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience, 2012, pp. 37–38. 18

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [18]

Graph convolutional networks for learn- ing laplace-beltrami operators,

Y. Wu, R. Fu, R. Peng, and Q. Chen, “Graph convolutional networks for learn- ing laplace-beltrami operators,” in ICML 2024 Workshop on Geometry-grounded Representation Learning and Generative Modeling, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=K2L88RnYl7

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Laplace–beltrami spectra as ‘shape-dna’ of surfaces and solids,

M. Reuter, F.-E. Wolter, and N. Peinecke, “Laplace–beltrami spectra as ‘shape-dna’ of surfaces and solids,” Computer-Aided Design, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 342–366, 2006

work page 2006

[3] [2]

Three-dimensional cad model matching with anisotropic diffusion maps,

X. Lin, K. Zhu, and Q.-G. Wang, “Three-dimensional cad model matching with anisotropic diffusion maps,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 265–274, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [3]

Deep wavelet neural pro- cess: Modeling stochastic variation of non-euclidean functional data for manufacturing qual- ity inference,

Y. Wang, S. Wang, B. Yang, L. Zhou, Z. Shi, L. Yi, and L. Kang, “Deep wavelet neural pro- cess: Modeling stochastic variation of non-euclidean functional data for manufacturing qual- ity inference,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 5125–5136, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [4]

An intrinsic geometrical approach for statistical process control of surface and manifold data,

X. Zhao and E. Del Castillo, “An intrinsic geometrical approach for statistical process control of surface and manifold data,” Technometrics, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 295–312, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [5]

A registration-free approach for statistical process control of 3d scanned objects via fem,

X. Zhao and E. del Castillo, “A registration-free approach for statistical process control of 3d scanned objects via fem,” Precision Engineering, vol. 74, pp. 247–263, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [6]

Chavel, Eigenvalues in Riemannian geometry

I. Chavel, Eigenvalues in Riemannian geometry. Academic Press, 1984

work page 1984

[8] [7]

Rosenberg, The Laplacian on a Riemannian Manifold: An Introduction to Analysis on Manifolds

S. Rosenberg, The Laplacian on a Riemannian Manifold: An Introduction to Analysis on Manifolds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997

work page 1997