\section{Introduction}

Please follow the steps outlined below when submitting your manuscript to
the IEEE Computer Society Press.  This style guide now has several
important modifications (for example, you are no longer warned against the
use of sticky tape to attach your artwork to the paper), so all authors
should read this new version.

\subsection{Language}

All manuscripts must be in English.

\subsection{Dual submission}

Please refer to the author guidelines on the CVPR 2018 web page for a
discussion of the policy on dual submissions.

\subsection{Paper length}
Papers, excluding the references section,
must be no longer than eight pages in length. The references section
will not be included in the page count, and there is no limit on the
length of the references section. For example, a paper of eight pages
with two pages of references would have a total length of 10 pages.
{\bf There will be no extra page charges for
  CVPR 2018.}

Overlength papers will simply not be reviewed.  This includes papers
where the margins and formatting are deemed to have been significantly
altered from those laid down by this style guide.  Note that this
\LaTeX\ guide already sets figure captions and references in a smaller font.
The reason such papers will not be reviewed is that there is no provision for
supervised revisions of manuscripts.  The reviewing process cannot determine
the suitability of the paper for presentation in eight pages if it is
reviewed in eleven.

\subsection{The ruler}
The \LaTeX\ style defines a printed ruler which should be present in the
version submitted for review.  The ruler is provided in order that
reviewers may comment on particular lines in the paper without
circumlocution.  If you are preparing a document using a non-\LaTeX\
document preparation system, please arrange for an equivalent ruler to
appear on the final output pages.  The presence or absence of the ruler
should not change the appearance of any other content on the page.  The
camera ready copy should not contain a ruler. (\LaTeX\ users may uncomment
the \verb'\cvprfinalcopy' command in the document preamble.)  Reviewers:
note that the ruler measurements do not align well with lines in the paper
--- this turns out to be very difficult to do well when the paper contains
many figures and equations, and, when done, looks ugly.  Just use fractional
references (e.g.\ this line is $095.5$), although in most cases one would
expect that the approximate location will be adequate.

\subsection{Mathematics}

Please number all of your sections and displayed equations.  It is
important for readers to be able to refer to any particular equation.  Just
because you didn't refer to it in the text doesn't mean some future reader
might not need to refer to it.  It is cumbersome to have to use
circumlocutions like ``the equation second from the top of page 3 column
1''.  (Note that the ruler will not be present in the final copy, so is not
an alternative to equation numbers).  All authors will benefit from reading
Mermin's description of how to write mathematics:
\url{http://www.pamitc.org/documents/mermin.pdf}.

\subsection{Blind review}

Many authors misunderstand the concept of anonymizing for blind
review.  Blind review does not mean that one must remove
citations to one's own work---in fact it is often impossible to
review a paper unless the previous citations are known and
available.

Blind review means that you do not use the words ``my'' or ``our''
when citing previous work.  That is all.  (But see below for
techreports.)

Saying ``this builds on the work of Lucy Smith [1]'' does not say
that you are Lucy Smith; it says that you are building on her
work.  If you are Smith and Jones, do not say ``as we show in
[7]'', say ``as Smith and Jones show in [7]'' and at the end of the
paper, include reference 7 as you would any other cited work.

An example of a bad paper just asking to be rejected:
\begin{quote}
\begin{center}
    An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
\end{center}

   In this paper we present a performance analysis of our
   previous paper [1], and show it to be inferior to all
   previously known methods.  Why the previous paper was
   accepted without this analysis is beyond me.

   [1] Removed for blind review
\end{quote}

An example of an acceptable paper:

\begin{quote}
\begin{center}
     An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
\end{center}

   In this paper we present a performance analysis of the
   paper of Smith \etal [1], and show it to be inferior to
   all previously known methods.  Why the previous paper
   was accepted without this analysis is beyond me.

   [1] Smith, L and Jones, C. ``The frobnicatable foo
   filter, a fundamental contribution to human knowledge''.
   Nature 381(12), 1-213.
\end{quote}

If you are making a submission to another conference at the same time,
which covers similar or overlapping material, you may need to refer to that
submission in order to explain the differences, just as you would if you
had previously published related work.  In such cases, include the
anonymized parallel submission~\cite{Authors14} as additional material and
cite it as
\begin{quote}
[1] Authors. ``The frobnicatable foo filter'', F\&G 2014 Submission ID 324,
Supplied as additional material {\tt fg324.pdf}.
\end{quote}

Finally, you may feel you need to tell the reader that more details can be
found elsewhere, and refer them to a technical report.  For conference
submissions, the paper must stand on its own, and not {\em require} the
reviewer to go to a techreport for further details.  Thus, you may say in
the body of the paper ``further details may be found
in~\cite{Authors14b}''.  Then submit the techreport as additional material.
Again, you may not assume the reviewers will read this material.

Sometimes your paper is about a problem which you tested using a tool which
is widely known to be restricted to a single institution.  For example,
let's say it's 1969, you have solved a key problem on the Apollo lander,
and you believe that the CVPR70 audience would like to hear about your
solution.  The work is a development of your celebrated 1968 paper entitled
``Zero-g frobnication: How being the only people in the world with access to
the Apollo lander source code makes us a wow at parties'', by Zeus \etal.

You can handle this paper like any other.  Don't write ``We show how to
improve our previous work [Anonymous, 1968].  This time we tested the
algorithm on a lunar lander [name of lander removed for blind review]''.
That would be silly, and would immediately identify the authors. Instead
write the following:
\begin{quotation}
\noindent
   We describe a system for zero-g frobnication.  This
   system is new because it handles the following cases:
   A, B.  Previous systems [Zeus et al. 1968] didn't
   handle case B properly.  Ours handles it by including
   a foo term in the bar integral.

   ...

   The proposed system was integrated with the Apollo
   lunar lander, and went all the way to the moon, don't
   you know.  It displayed the following behaviours
   which show how well we solved cases A and B: ...
\end{quotation}
As you can see, the above text follows standard scientific convention,
reads better than the first version, and does not explicitly name you as
the authors.  A reviewer might think it likely that the new paper was
written by Zeus \etal, but cannot make any decision based on that guess.
He or she would have to be sure that no other authors could have been
contracted to solve problem B.

FAQ: Are acknowledgements OK?  No.  Leave them for the final copy.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\fbox{\rule{0pt}{2in} \rule{0.9\linewidth}{0pt}}

\end{center}
   \caption{Example of caption.  It is set in Roman so that mathematics
   (always set in Roman: $B \sin A = A \sin B$) may be included without an
   ugly clash.}
\label{fig:long}
\label{fig:onecol}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Miscellaneous}

\noindent
Compare the following:\\
\begin{tabular}{ll}
 \verb'$conf_a$' &  $conf_a$ \\
 \verb'$\mathit{conf}_a$' & $\mathit{conf}_a$
\end{tabular}\\
See The \TeX book, p165.

The space after \eg, meaning ``for example'', should not be a
sentence-ending space. So \eg is correct, {\em e.g.} is not.  The provided
\verb'\eg' macro takes care of this.

When citing a multi-author paper, you may save space by using ``et alia'',
shortened to ``\etal'' (not ``{\em et.\ al.}'' as ``{\em et}'' is a complete word.)
However, use it only when there are three or more authors.  Thus, the
following is correct: ``
   Frobnication has been trendy lately.
   It was introduced by Alpher~\cite{Alpher02}, and subsequently developed by
   Alpher and Fotheringham-Smythe~\cite{Alpher03}, and Alpher \etal~\cite{Alpher04}.''

This is incorrect: ``... subsequently developed by Alpher \etal~\cite{Alpher03} ...''
because reference~\cite{Alpher03} has just two authors.  If you use the
\verb'\etal' macro provided, then you need not worry about double periods
when used at the end of a sentence as in Alpher \etal.

For this citation style, keep multiple citations in numerical (not
chronological) order, so prefer \cite{Alpher03,Alpher02,Authors14} to
\cite{Alpher02,Alpher03,Authors14}.

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\fbox{\rule{0pt}{2in} \rule{.9\linewidth}{0pt}}
\end{center}
   \caption{Example of a short caption, which should be centered.}
\label{fig:short}
\end{figure*}

\section{Formatting your paper}

All text must be in a two-column format. The total allowable width of the
text area is $6\frac78$ inches (17.5 cm) wide by $8\frac78$ inches (22.54
cm) high. Columns are to be $3\frac14$ inches (8.25 cm) wide, with a
$\frac{5}{16}$ inch (0.8 cm) space between them. The main title (on the
first page) should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from the top edge of the
page. The second and following pages should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from
the top edge. On all pages, the bottom margin should be 1-1/8 inches (2.86
cm) from the bottom edge of the page for $8.5 \times 11$-inch paper; for A4
paper, approximately 1-5/8 inches (4.13 cm) from the bottom edge of the
page.

\subsection{Margins and page numbering}

All printed material, including text, illustrations, and charts, must be kept
within a print area 6-7/8 inches (17.5 cm) wide by 8-7/8 inches (22.54 cm)
high.
Page numbers should be in footer with page numbers, centered and .75
inches from the bottom of the page and make it start at the correct page
number rather than the 4321 in the example.  To do this fine the line (around
line 23)
\begin{verbatim}
\setcounter{page}{4321}
\end{verbatim}
where the number 4321 is your assigned starting page.

Make sure the first page is numbered by commenting out the first page being
empty on line 46
\begin{verbatim}
\end{verbatim}

\subsection{Type-style and fonts}

Wherever Times is specified, Times Roman may also be used. If neither is
available on your word processor, please use the font closest in
appearance to Times to which you have access.

MAIN TITLE. Center the title 1-3/8 inches (3.49 cm) from the top edge of
the first page. The title should be in Times 14-point, boldface type.
Capitalize the first letter of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and
adverbs; do not capitalize articles, coordinate conjunctions, or
prepositions (unless the title begins with such a word). Leave two blank
lines after the title.

AUTHOR NAME(s) and AFFILIATION(s) are to be centered beneath the title
and printed in Times 12-point, non-boldface type. This information is to
be followed by two blank lines.

The ABSTRACT and MAIN TEXT are to be in a two-column format.

MAIN TEXT. Type main text in 10-point Times, single-spaced. Do NOT use
double-spacing. All paragraphs should be indented 1 pica (approx. 1/6
inch or 0.422 cm). Make sure your text is fully justified---that is,
flush left and flush right. Please do not place any additional blank
lines between paragraphs.

Figure and table captions should be 9-point Roman type as in
Figures~\ref{fig:onecol} and~\ref{fig:short}.  Short captions should be centred.

\noindent Callouts should be 9-point Helvetica, non-boldface type.
Initially capitalize only the first word of section titles and first-,
second-, and third-order headings.

FIRST-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, {\large \bf 1. Introduction})
should be Times 12-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left,
with one blank line before, and one blank line after.

SECOND-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, { \bf 1.1. Database elements})
should be Times 11-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left,
with one blank line before, and one after. If you require a third-order
heading (we discourage it), use 10-point Times, boldface, initially
capitalized, flush left, preceded by one blank line, followed by a period
and your text on the same line.

\subsection{Footnotes}

Please use footnotes\footnote {This is what a footnote looks like.  It
often distracts the reader from the main flow of the argument.} sparingly.
Indeed, try to avoid footnotes altogether and include necessary peripheral
observations in
the text (within parentheses, if you prefer, as in this sentence).  If you
wish to use a footnote, place it at the bottom of the column on the page on
which it is referenced. Use Times 8-point type, single-spaced.

\subsection{References}

List and number all bibliographical references in 9-point Times,
single-spaced, at the end of your paper. When referenced in the text,
enclose the citation number in square brackets, for
example~\cite{Authors14}.  Where appropriate, include the name(s) of
editors of referenced books.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
\hline
Method & Frobnability \\
\hline\hline
Theirs & Frumpy \\
Yours & Frobbly \\
Ours & Makes one's heart Frob\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results.   Ours is better.}
\end{table}

\subsection{Illustrations, graphs, and photographs}

All graphics should be centered.  Please ensure that any point you wish to
make is resolvable in a printed copy of the paper.  Resize fonts in figures
to match the font in the body text, and choose line widths which render
effectively in print.  Many readers (and reviewers), even of an electronic
copy, will choose to print your paper in order to read it.  You cannot
insist that they do otherwise, and therefore must not assume that they can
zoom in to see tiny details on a graphic.

When placing figures in \LaTeX, it's almost always best to use
\verb+\includegraphics+, and to specify the  figure width as a multiple of
the line width as in the example below
{\small\begin{verbatim}
   \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx} ...
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]
                   {myfile.eps}
\end{verbatim}
}

\subsection{Color}

Please refer to the author guidelines on the CVPR 2018 web page for a discussion
of the use of color in your document.

\section{Final copy}

You must include your signed IEEE copyright release form when you submit
your finished paper. We MUST have this form before your paper can be
published in the proceedings.

{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee}

\section{Introduction}

Please follow the steps outlined below when submitting your manuscript to
the IEEE Computer Society Press.  This style guide now has several
important modifications (for example, you are no longer warned against the
use of sticky tape to attach your artwork to the paper), so all authors
should read this new version.

\subsection{Language}

All manuscripts must be in English.

\subsection{Dual submission}

Please refer to the author guidelines on the CVPR 2018 web page for a
discussion of the policy on dual submissions.

\subsection{Paper length}
Papers, excluding the references section,
must be no longer than eight pages in length. The references section
will not be included in the page count, and there is no limit on the
length of the references section. For example, a paper of eight pages
with two pages of references would have a total length of 10 pages.
{\bf There will be no extra page charges for CVPR 2018.}

Overlength papers will simply not be reviewed.  This includes papers
where the margins and formatting are deemed to have been significantly
altered from those laid down by this style guide.  Note that this
\LaTeX\ guide already sets figure captions and references in a smaller font.
The reason such papers will not be reviewed is that there is no provision for
supervised revisions of manuscripts.  The reviewing process cannot determine
the suitability of the paper for presentation in eight pages if it is
reviewed in eleven.

\subsection{The ruler}
The \LaTeX\ style defines a printed ruler which should be present in the
version submitted for review.  The ruler is provided in order that
reviewers may comment on particular lines in the paper without
circumlocution.  If you are preparing a document using a non-\LaTeX\
document preparation system, please arrange for an equivalent ruler to
appear on the final output pages.  The presence or absence of the ruler
should not change the appearance of any other content on the page.  The
camera ready copy should not contain a ruler. (\LaTeX\ users may uncomment
the \verb'\cvprfinalcopy' command in the document preamble.)  Reviewers:
note that the ruler measurements do not align well with lines in the paper
--- this turns out to be very difficult to do well when the paper contains
many figures and equations, and, when done, looks ugly.  Just use fractional
references (e.g.\ this line is $095.5$), although in most cases one would
expect that the approximate location will be adequate.

\subsection{Mathematics}

Please number all of your sections and displayed equations.  It is
important for readers to be able to refer to any particular equation.  Just
because you didn't refer to it in the text doesn't mean some future reader
might not need to refer to it.  It is cumbersome to have to use
circumlocutions like ``the equation second from the top of page 3 column
1''.  (Note that the ruler will not be present in the final copy, so is not
an alternative to equation numbers).  All authors will benefit from reading
Mermin's description of how to write mathematics:
\url{http://www.pamitc.org/documents/mermin.pdf}.

\subsection{Blind review}

Many authors misunderstand the concept of anonymizing for blind
review.  Blind review does not mean that one must remove
citations to one's own work---in fact it is often impossible to
review a paper unless the previous citations are known and
available.

Blind review means that you do not use the words ``my'' or ``our''
when citing previous work.  That is all.  (But see below for
techreports.)

Saying ``this builds on the work of Lucy Smith [1]'' does not say
that you are Lucy Smith; it says that you are building on her
work.  If you are Smith and Jones, do not say ``as we show in
[7]'', say ``as Smith and Jones show in [7]'' and at the end of the
paper, include reference 7 as you would any other cited work.

An example of a bad paper just asking to be rejected:
\begin{quote}
\begin{center}
    An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
\end{center}

   In this paper we present a performance analysis of our
   previous paper [1], and show it to be inferior to all
   previously known methods.  Why the previous paper was
   accepted without this analysis is beyond me.

   [1] Removed for blind review
\end{quote}

An example of an acceptable paper:

\begin{quote}
\begin{center}
     An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
\end{center}

   In this paper we present a performance analysis of the
   paper of Smith \etal [1], and show it to be inferior to
   all previously known methods.  Why the previous paper
   was accepted without this analysis is beyond me.

   [1] Smith, L and Jones, C. ``The frobnicatable foo
   filter, a fundamental contribution to human knowledge''.
   Nature 381(12), 1-213.
\end{quote}

If you are making a submission to another conference at the same time,
which covers similar or overlapping material, you may need to refer to that
submission in order to explain the differences, just as you would if you
had previously published related work.  In such cases, include the
anonymized parallel submission~\cite{Authors14} as additional material and
cite it as
\begin{quote}
[1] Authors. ``The frobnicatable foo filter'', F\&G 2014 Submission ID 324,
Supplied as additional material {\tt fg324.pdf}.
\end{quote}

Finally, you may feel you need to tell the reader that more details can be
found elsewhere, and refer them to a technical report.  For conference
submissions, the paper must stand on its own, and not {\em require} the
reviewer to go to a techreport for further details.  Thus, you may say in
the body of the paper ``further details may be found
in~\cite{Authors14b}''.  Then submit the techreport as additional material.
Again, you may not assume the reviewers will read this material.

Sometimes your paper is about a problem which you tested using a tool which
is widely known to be restricted to a single institution.  For example,
let's say it's 1969, you have solved a key problem on the Apollo lander,
and you believe that the CVPR70 audience would like to hear about your
solution.  The work is a development of your celebrated 1968 paper entitled
``Zero-g frobnication: How being the only people in the world with access to
the Apollo lander source code makes us a wow at parties'', by Zeus \etal.

You can handle this paper like any other.  Don't write ``We show how to
improve our previous work [Anonymous, 1968].  This time we tested the
algorithm on a lunar lander [name of lander removed for blind review]''.
That would be silly, and would immediately identify the authors. Instead
write the following:
\begin{quotation}
\noindent
   We describe a system for zero-g frobnication.  This
   system is new because it handles the following cases:
   A, B.  Previous systems [Zeus et al. 1968] didn't
   handle case B properly.  Ours handles it by including
   a foo term in the bar integral.

   ...

   The proposed system was integrated with the Apollo
   lunar lander, and went all the way to the moon, don't
   you know.  It displayed the following behaviours
   which show how well we solved cases A and B: ...
\end{quotation}
As you can see, the above text follows standard scientific convention,
reads better than the first version, and does not explicitly name you as
the authors.  A reviewer might think it likely that the new paper was
written by Zeus \etal, but cannot make any decision based on that guess.
He or she would have to be sure that no other authors could have been
contracted to solve problem B.

FAQ: Are acknowledgements OK?  No.  Leave them for the final copy.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\fbox{\rule{0pt}{2in} \rule{0.9\linewidth}{0pt}}

\end{center}
   \caption{Example of caption.  It is set in Roman so that mathematics
   (always set in Roman: $B \sin A = A \sin B$) may be included without an
   ugly clash.}
\label{fig:long}
\label{fig:onecol}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Miscellaneous}

\noindent
Compare the following:\\
\begin{tabular}{ll}
 \verb'$conf_a$' &  $conf_a$ \\
 \verb'$\mathit{conf}_a$' & $\mathit{conf}_a$
\end{tabular}\\
See The \TeX book, p165.

The space after \eg, meaning ``for example'', should not be a
sentence-ending space. So \eg is correct, {\em e.g.} is not.  The provided
\verb'\eg' macro takes care of this.

When citing a multi-author paper, you may save space by using ``et alia'',
shortened to ``\etal'' (not ``{\em et.\ al.}'' as ``{\em et}'' is a complete word.)
However, use it only when there are three or more authors.  Thus, the
following is correct: ``
   Frobnication has been trendy lately.
   It was introduced by Alpher~\cite{Alpher02}, and subsequently developed by
   Alpher and Fotheringham-Smythe~\cite{Alpher03}, and Alpher \etal~\cite{Alpher04}.''

This is incorrect: ``... subsequently developed by Alpher \etal~\cite{Alpher03} ...''
because reference~\cite{Alpher03} has just two authors.  If you use the
\verb'\etal' macro provided, then you need not worry about double periods
when used at the end of a sentence as in Alpher \etal.

For this citation style, keep multiple citations in numerical (not
chronological) order, so prefer \cite{Alpher03,Alpher02,Authors14} to
\cite{Alpher02,Alpher03,Authors14}.

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\fbox{\rule{0pt}{2in} \rule{.9\linewidth}{0pt}}
\end{center}
   \caption{Example of a short caption, which should be centered.}
\label{fig:short}
\end{figure*}

\section{Formatting your paper}

All text must be in a two-column format. The total allowable width of the
text area is $6\frac78$ inches (17.5 cm) wide by $8\frac78$ inches (22.54
cm) high. Columns are to be $3\frac14$ inches (8.25 cm) wide, with a
$\frac{5}{16}$ inch (0.8 cm) space between them. The main title (on the
first page) should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from the top edge of the
page. The second and following pages should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from
the top edge. On all pages, the bottom margin should be 1-1/8 inches (2.86
cm) from the bottom edge of the page for $8.5 \times 11$-inch paper; for A4
paper, approximately 1-5/8 inches (4.13 cm) from the bottom edge of the
page.

\subsection{Margins and page numbering}

All printed material, including text, illustrations, and charts, must be kept
within a print area 6-7/8 inches (17.5 cm) wide by 8-7/8 inches (22.54 cm)
high.

\subsection{Type-style and fonts}

Wherever Times is specified, Times Roman may also be used. If neither is
available on your word processor, please use the font closest in
appearance to Times to which you have access.

MAIN TITLE. Center the title 1-3/8 inches (3.49 cm) from the top edge of
the first page. The title should be in Times 14-point, boldface type.
Capitalize the first letter of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and
adverbs; do not capitalize articles, coordinate conjunctions, or
prepositions (unless the title begins with such a word). Leave two blank
lines after the title.

AUTHOR NAME(s) and AFFILIATION(s) are to be centered beneath the title
and printed in Times 12-point, non-boldface type. This information is to
be followed by two blank lines.

The ABSTRACT and MAIN TEXT are to be in a two-column format.

MAIN TEXT. Type main text in 10-point Times, single-spaced. Do NOT use
double-spacing. All paragraphs should be indented 1 pica (approx. 1/6
inch or 0.422 cm). Make sure your text is fully justified---that is,
flush left and flush right. Please do not place any additional blank
lines between paragraphs.

Figure and table captions should be 9-point Roman type as in
Figures~\ref{fig:onecol} and~\ref{fig:short}.  Short captions should be centred.

\noindent Callouts should be 9-point Helvetica, non-boldface type.
Initially capitalize only the first word of section titles and first-,
second-, and third-order headings.

FIRST-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, {\large \bf 1. Introduction})
should be Times 12-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left,
with one blank line before, and one blank line after.

SECOND-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, { \bf 1.1. Database elements})
should be Times 11-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left,
with one blank line before, and one after. If you require a third-order
heading (we discourage it), use 10-point Times, boldface, initially
capitalized, flush left, preceded by one blank line, followed by a period
and your text on the same line.

\subsection{Footnotes}

Please use footnotes\footnote {This is what a footnote looks like.  It
often distracts the reader from the main flow of the argument.} sparingly.
Indeed, try to avoid footnotes altogether and include necessary peripheral
observations in
the text (within parentheses, if you prefer, as in this sentence).  If you
wish to use a footnote, place it at the bottom of the column on the page on
which it is referenced. Use Times 8-point type, single-spaced.

\subsection{References}

List and number all bibliographical references in 9-point Times,
single-spaced, at the end of your paper. When referenced in the text,
enclose the citation number in square brackets, for
example~\cite{Authors14}.  Where appropriate, include the name(s) of
editors of referenced books.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
\hline
Method & Frobnability \\
\hline\hline
Theirs & Frumpy \\
Yours & Frobbly \\
Ours & Makes one's heart Frob\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Results.   Ours is better.}
\end{table}

\subsection{Illustrations, graphs, and photographs}

All graphics should be centered.  Please ensure that any point you wish to
make is resolvable in a printed copy of the paper.  Resize fonts in figures
to match the font in the body text, and choose line widths which render
effectively in print.  Many readers (and reviewers), even of an electronic
copy, will choose to print your paper in order to read it.  You cannot
insist that they do otherwise, and therefore must not assume that they can
zoom in to see tiny details on a graphic.

When placing figures in \LaTeX, it's almost always best to use
\verb+\includegraphics+, and to specify the  figure width as a multiple of
the line width as in the example below
{\small\begin{verbatim}
   \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx} ...
   \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]
                   {myfile.eps}
\end{verbatim}
}

\subsection{Color}

Please refer to the author guidelines on the CVPR 2018 web page for a discussion
of the use of color in your document.

\section{Final copy}

You must include your signed IEEE copyright release form when you submit
your finished paper. We MUST have this form before your paper can be
published in the proceedings.

Please direct any questions to the production editor in charge of these
proceedings at the IEEE Computer Society Press: Phone (714) 821-8380, or
Fax (714) 761-1784.

{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee}

\section{Introduction}

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{arq_rere.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{From left to right: complete objects, objects with simulated fractures, reconstruction from ORGAN and a second iteration with ORGAN.}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}

During archaeological excavations, it is common to find fractured or damaged objects. The process to repair and conserve these objects is tedious and delicate, objects are often fragile and the time for manipulation must be short. With the recent progress in geometry processing and shape analysis, one can address the repair problem from a computational perspective. The process starts with a 3D scanning of the object. Then, an algorithm analyzes the 3D shape to guide the conservation process. Previous experience shows that unsupervised shape analysis to repair damaged objects give good approximations to conservators, and therefore reduce the workload and time of the processing \cite{Papaioannou:2017:ROC:3068422.3009905}.

The main problem is the prediction of missing geometry of damaged objects. Current methods assume that man-made objects exhibit some kind of structure and regularity \cite{Mitra2013}. The most common type of structure used is symmetry. If an algorithm can detect symmetries in the object, we can apply the symmetric transformation to create what is missing. Although this approach is a promising direction, there are still some drawbacks: 1) If the object is too damaged, the symmetries cannot be recovered from the object itself. 2) The computational time to search for symmetries is still high.

Deep learning techniques have proved to be highly successful in processing 3D voxelized inputs~\cite{wu_3d_2015,dai_shape_2016} and has also been recently used with generative adversarial networks (GANs)~\cite{goodfellow_generative_2014} architectures~\cite{wu_learning_2016}. We hypothesize that the aforementioned drawbacks can be addressed by a data-driven approach. It means we can learn the structure and regularity from a collection of complete known objects (in training time) and use them to complete and repair incomplete damaged objects (in testing time).

In this work we propose an object reconstruction generative adversarial network (ORGAN), for which we employ a 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) with skip-connections, as a generator on a Conditional GAN (CGAN)~\cite{mirza_conditional_2014} architecture. With two optimization targets: a mean absolute error (MAE) and an Improved Wasserstein GAN (IWGAN)~\cite{gulrajani_improved_2017} loss, the final model is encouraged to find solutions that resemble the structure of real objects. An example of a reconstructed object is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:example}. The code for the project is publicly available on a GitHub repository~\footnote{https://github.com/renato145/3D-ORGAN}.

\section{Related work}

Shape completion has gained important attention in recent years. In consequence, many approaches have been proposed so far. Pauly \etal~\cite{Pauly2005} proposed to complete a 3D scans using similar objects from a shape repository. A post-processing step of non-rigid alignment fix the transitions between the input geometry and the generated geometry. On the other hand, Huang \etal~\cite{Huang2012} computed feature-conforming fields which were used to complete missing geometry. Another interesting approach is the use of local features to guide the process of completion. For example, Harary \etal~\cite{Harary2014a} proposed to transfer geometry between two 3D objects using a similarity assessment on Heat Kernel Signatures\cite{Sun2009}. Likewise, Harary \etal~\cite{Harary2014b} proposed to complete an object with knowledge extracted from curves around the missing geometry.

An important concept that has been used to synthesize geometry is the symmetry. If one can get the information about the symmetry of an object, that information could be used to replicate portions of the object until completing it. Thrun and Wegbreit\cite{Thrun2005} proposed to complete partial scans using probabilistic measure to score the symmetry of a given object. Similarly, Xu \etal~\cite{Xu2009} designed an method to find the intrinsic reflectional symmetry axis of tubular structures, and therefore they used that information to complete human-like 3D shapes. More related to archaeological objects, Sipiran \etal~\cite{Sipiran2014} defined a strategy to find symmetric correspondences in damaged objects, which were used later to synthesize the missing geometry. Likewise, Mavridis et al.\cite{Mavridis:2015} formulated the problem of symmetry detection as an optimization problem with sparse constraints. The output of this optimization provided good hints for the process of completion of broken archaeological objects. More recently, Sipiran\cite{Sipiran_2017_ICCV} described an algorithm to determine the axial symmetry of damaged objects. This symmetry was subsequently used to restore objects with good precision.
\subsection{Deep learning methods}

With the availability of 3D shape databases \cite{chang_shapenet:_2015,koutsoudis_3d_2010,wu_3d_2014}, deep learning approaches have started to being applied on tasks involving 3D data. In Wu \etal~\cite{wu_3d_2015} a 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) is proposed for classification and shape completion from 2.5D depth maps, more recently and relevant to our case, Dai \etal~\cite{dai_shape_2016} proposes an encoder-predictor network (which follows the idea of an autoencoder) for the task of shape completion.

Recent advances in generative models with the use of generative adversarial networks (GANs) \cite{goodfellow_generative_2014} have shown an effective aid in tasks that require the recuperation of missing information while giving plausible-looking outputs. By adding a GAN loss to our model, the network is encouraged to produce outputs that reside on the manifold of the trained objects. Some examples can be seen on tasks like: super-resolution \cite{ledig_photo-realistic_2016}, image completion \cite{yeh_semantic_2016} and 3D object reconstruction from 2D images \cite{wu_learning_2016}.

One of the drawbacks of GAN models is the instability on their training, an alternative to traditional GAN is the Wasserstein GAN algorithm (WGAN) \cite{arjovsky_wasserstein_2017} which shows an improved stability by minimizing the Wasserstein distance between distributions instead of the Kullback-Leibler divergence (KL), but this algorithm forces the critic to model only K-Lipschitz functions by clamping the weights to a fixed box. A new Improved Wasserstein GAN (IWGAN) \cite{gulrajani_improved_2017} proposes an alternative method for enforcing the Lipschitz constraint, penalizing the norm of the gradient of the critic with respect to its input, resulting in faster convergence and higher quality samples.

\section{Method}

The goal of our method is to take a 3D scan of a fractured object as input and predict the complete object as output. To achieve this, we use a shape completion network that represents 3D objects as a voxel grid of size $32^3$, the completion network is then taken as the generator $G$ in a GAN architecture. The final training objective combines the completion network loss $\mathcal{L}_{comp}$ and the adversarial loss $\mathcal{L}_{adv}$.

\subsection{Data generation} \label{s:datagen}

In order to train the network, pairs of fractured and complete objects are needed, to simulate fractures from complete objects we sample $n$ random voxels from the occupied grid, then, at the each $n$ voxel a fracture of random size $m_n$ is created, having a probability $p$ of having a spherical shape, and $p-1$ of having a cubic shape. All our models were trained with $p=0.75$, $n$ sampled from 1 to 4 and $m$  from 3 to 6.

\subsection{Shape completion network}

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{generator.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{Network architecture for the generator.}
\label{fig:g}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{gan.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{Reconstruction GAN architecture, conditioned on the object label.}
\label{fig:gan}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{discriminator.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{Network architecture for the discriminator.}
\label{fig:d}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{se.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{3D Squeeze-and-Excitation block.}
\label{fig:se}
\end{figure}

The network, illustrated on Figure~\ref{fig:g}, starts with a 3D encoder which compresses the input voxel grid using a series of 3D convolutional layers, the compressed hidden values are then concatenated with the embedded information about the input class label and finally a 3D decoder uses 3D transposed convolutional layers to predict the $32^3$ voxel output. Similarly to U-net architecture~\cite{ronneberger_u-net:_2015} and also used on Dai \etal~\cite{dai_shape_2016} for 3D voxels, we add skip connections on the decoder part of the network, concatenating the output of the transposed convolutions with the corresponding outputs of the encoder layers, this way we double the feature map size and allow the network to propagate local structure of the input data in the generated output.

All the layers use ReLU activations and batch normalization, with the exception of the last one that uses tanh activation and no batch normalization. After each convolutional operation a 3D Squeeze-and-Excitation (SE) block~\cite{hu_squeeze-and-excitation_2017} is applied with a reduction ratio $r=16$ as used in Hu \etal~\cite{hu_squeeze-and-excitation_2017}, see Figure~\ref{fig:se}. To train the network we use a L1-norm as the completion loss:

\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{comp} = |x_t - G(x_i|y)|
\label{eq:lcomp}
\end{equation}

Where $x_t$ is the target sample, $x_i$ is the incomplete object, $y$ is the object label and $G$ is the completion network

\subsection{Adversarial network architecture}

As proposed on Goodfellow \etal~\cite{goodfellow_generative_2014}, the GAN algorithm consists of a generator $G$ and a discriminator $D$, where $G$ captures the data distribution and $D$ estimates the probability that a sample came from the training data rather than G. And following the idea of Conditional Generative Adversarial Nets (CGAN)~\cite{mirza_conditional_2014}, we extend our GAN to a conditional model, by feeding $G$ and $D$ information about class labels as an additional input layer as showed on Figures~\ref{fig:g}, \ref{fig:gan} and \ref{fig:d}.

$D$ starts similarly to $G$, compressing the voxels input and concatenating the class label, then is followed by fully connected layers, as showed on Figure~\ref{fig:d}. All layers of $D$ use Leaky ReLU activation functions and no batch normalization, with the exception of the last fully connected layer, that outputs a single value with no activation function. The 3D convolutional layers are, as in $G$, followed by a SE block.

Combining the ideas of IWGAN and CGAN, we define $D$ loss function as:

\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{adv}^D &= \mathbb{E}_{\hat{x} \sim P_g}[D(\hat{x}|y)]
                       - \mathbb{E}_{x \sim P_r}[D(x|y)] \\
               &\qquad + \lambda \mathbb{E}_{\hat{x} \sim P_x}[(||\nabla_{\hat{x}} D(\hat{x}|y)||_2 - 1)^2]
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:dgan}
\end{equation}

Where $\lambda$ is the gradient penalty coefficient, $y$ is the class label data, $P_g$ is the generator distribution, $P_r$ is the target distribution and $P_x$ is the distribution sampling uniformly on straight line between $P_g$ and $P_r$. We use $\lambda=10$ as proposed on Gulrajani \etal~\cite{gulrajani_improved_2017}.

Finally, to define $G$ loss function, we combine a typical WGAN loss with Equation~\ref{eq:lcomp}:

\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{adv}^G = D(\hat{x}|y) + k\mathcal{L}_{comp}
\label{eq:ggan}
\end{equation}

Where $k$ controls the learning contribution of the completion loss. The final model uses $k=100$.

\section{Experiments}

\subsection{Data} \label{s:data}

We perform the validations of the models and hyperparameter search using the ModelNet10 dataset~\cite{wu_3d_2014}, a subset of a large 3D CAD model dataset (ModelNet), containing 10 classes (bathtub, bed, chair, desk, dresser, monitor, nightstand, sofa, table and toilet) divided on 3991 objects as the train set and 908 as the test set.

For the final model, we built a custom dataset, starting with ModelNet10 and adding an 11th class of archaeological looking objects, as the objective of this model is to reconstruct damaged archaeological objects. This new class contains 659 handpicked objects from ModelNet40 and 492 handpicked objects 3D Pottery dataset~\cite{koutsoudis_3d_2010}. The resulting dataset is divided into 4923 objects for the train set and 1127 for the test set. Finally, we show how the model performs on real fractured objects, obtained from 3D scans of archaeological objects from the Larco museum~\footnote{http://www.museolarco.org}.

For all the experiments on this work we voxelize each object at a resolution of $32^3$ voxels using Binvox~\cite{min_binvox_2004,nooruddin_simplification_2003} and scale the binary voxels to $[-1,1]$.

\subsection{Training details}

The models were implemented using Keras framework~\cite{chollet_keras_2015} with Tensorflow~\cite{martin_abadi_tensorflow:_2015} as backend. We trained all the experiments on a NVIDIA TITAN Xp using a batch size of 64, with the generator model training every 5 batches and the discriminator model training every batch. For optimization we use Adam~\cite{kingma_adam:_2015} with $\alpha=0.0001$, $\beta_1=0.5$ and $\beta_2=0.9$, as proposed on Gulrajani \etal~\cite{gulrajani_improved_2017}. The final model is trained for 400 epochs.

\subsection{Performance of the final network}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{L1 loss results on different network settings against the test data set. Each setting was run for 100 epochs.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|l}
\hline
Skip-connections & Squeeze-and-excite & L1 loss \\
\hline
No & No & 0.0611 \\
Yes & No & 0.0061 \\
Yes & Yes & 0.0057 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{t:tests}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{L1 loss results by class label for the test data set.}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
\hline
Label & Input loss & Output loss \\
\hline
Archeology & 0.0209 & 0.0077 \\
Bathtub & 0.0180 & 0.0068 \\
Bed & 0.0235 & 0.0058 \\
Chair & 0.0185 & 0.0103 \\
Desk & 0.0202 & 0.0114 \\
Dresser & 0.0192 & 0.0027 \\
Monitor & 0.0181 & 0.0062 \\
Nightstand & 0.0203 & 0.0052 \\
Sofa & 0.0231 & 0.0063 \\
Table & 0.0129 & 0.0039 \\
Toilet & 0.0216 & 0.0100 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{t:results1}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{psizes.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{Model average performance against different randomly generated fractures. The number and size of the fractures vary between 1 and 15. We can see that even when 40\% of the voxels are missing, we can still recover 80\% of the information.}
\label{fig:psizes}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{res1_.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{Results on different labels with a maximum fracture size of 6. First row: Complete objects. Second row: Objects with fractures. Third row: Results from our model.}
\label{fig:res1}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{rimgs.png}
\end{center}
  \caption{Results on different labels with a maximum fracture size of 12. First row: Complete objects. Second row: Objects with fractures. Third row: Results from our model. Fourth row: A second iteration with our model.}
\label{fig:res12}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{res21_.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{Results from scanned archaeological objects. First row: Scanned archaeological objects. Second row: Obtained voxels. Third row: Results from our model.}
\label{fig:res21}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{res22_.png}
\end{center}
   \caption{Unexpected artifacts being reconstructed. First row: Scanned archaeological objects. Second row: Obtained voxels. Third row: Results from our model.}
\label{fig:res22}
\end{figure}

In order to choose the final network configuration, we trained different settings for 200 epochs each. The results show that using skip-connections is important for the network performance, and SE blocks can also give a performance boost, as seen in Table~\ref{t:tests}.

When using the model at inference time, only the generator is used. We tested the trained model on our custom dataset, reducing significantly the loss as seen on Table~\ref{t:results1}. On Figure~\ref{fig:psizes} we show the performance against different fragment sizes, it can be seen that the model can recover most of the information, even when more than half of the voxels are missing, without producing many misplaced voxels. Results on different labels from the test data set are shown on Figure~\ref{fig:res1}. In some cases, where the number of missing voxels was greater than 2000, an additional run on the model was performed against the first result as shown on Figures~\ref{fig:example} and \ref{fig:res12}.

We also performed tests on real fractured archaeological objects, results can be seen on Figure~\ref{fig:res21}. Some of the real objects greatly differ from the ones used in trained, on Figure~\ref{fig:res22}, we show some examples of unexpected fragments being reconstructed. This happened in objects whose structure greatly differed from that of the objects used in training.

\section{Conclusion}

This paper presents a method to predict the missing geometry of damaged objects: ORGAN, an object reconstruction generative adversarial network. Our results show that we can accurately recover an object structure, even in cases where the missing information represents more than half of the input occupied voxels. When tested on real archaeological objects, we showed some cases of unexpected artifacts being reconstructed, this was expected since the objects in this cases had different structures from the ones on the training set. As the objective of this work is to aid the conservation of archaeological objects, and knowing that this objects can greatly differ from one culture to another, we prepared our method to acts as a conditional model on a variable, which can be a culture, a region or any metadata of the object. Then, an important task is to increase the amount of data we have about archaeological objects, which we leave as our future work.

{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee}