okov2017escape]        point    91.8    -
  KCNet [@shen2018mining]           point    91.0    -
  SPH [@kazhdan2003rotation]         mesh    68.2   33.3
  MeshNet                            mesh    91.9   81.9
  -------------------------------- -------- ------ ------

  : Classification and retrieval results on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:application"}

For classification, we apply fully-connected layers (512, 256, 40) to the global features as the classifier, and add dropout layers with drop probability of 0.5 before the last two fully-connected layers. For retrieval, we calculate the L2 distances between the global features as similarities and evaluate the result with mean average precision (mAP). We use the SGD optimizer for training, with initial learning rate 0.01, momentum 0.9, weight decay 0.0005 and batch size 64.

  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Spatial                          $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$
  Structural-FRC    $\checkmark$                                 $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$
  Structural-FKC    $\checkmark$                  $\checkmark$                  $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$
  Mesh Conv         $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$                  $\checkmark$
  Accuracy (%)          83.5           88.2           87.0           89.9           90.4           91.9
  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  : Classification results of ablation experiments on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:ablation"}

  Aggregation Method    Accuracy (%)
  -------------------- --------------
  Average Pooling           90.7
  Max Pooling               91.1
  Concatenation             91.9

  : Classification results of different aggregation methods on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:aggregation"}

Table \[tab:application\] shows the experimental results of classification and retrieval on ModelNet40, comparing our work with representative methods. It is shown that, as a mesh-based representation, MeshNet achieves satisfying performance and makes great improvement compared with traditional mesh-based methods. It is also comparable with
okov2017escape ]         point     91.8     - 
   KCNet [ @shen2018mining ]            point     91.0     - 
   SPH [ @kazhdan2003rotation ]          mesh     68.2    33.3 
   MeshNet                             mesh     91.9    81.9 
   -------------------------------- -------- ------ ------ 

  : categorization and recovery resultant role on ModelNet40.[]{data - label="tab: application " } 

 For categorization, we apply in full - connected layers (512, 256, 40) to the ball-shaped feature as the classifier, and add dropout layer with drop probability of 0.5 before the last two in full - connected layers. For recovery, we calculate the L2 distances between the global features as similarities and evaluate the result with average average precision (mAP). We use the SGD optimizer for education, with initial learning rate 0.01, momentum 0.9, system of weights decay 0.0005 and batch size 64. 

   ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 
   Spatial                           $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$ 
   Structural - FRC     $ \checkmark$                                  $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$ 
   Structural - FKC     $ \checkmark$                   $ \checkmark$                   $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$ 
   Mesh Conv          $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$    $ \checkmark$                   $ \checkmark$ 
   Accuracy (%)           83.5            88.2            87.0            89.9            90.4            91.9 
   ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- 

  : Classification consequence of ablation experiments on ModelNet40.[]{data - label="tab: ablation " } 

   Aggregation Method     Accuracy (%) 
   -------------------- -------------- 
   Average Pooling            90.7 
   Max Pooling                91.1 
   Concatenation              91.9 

  : Classification results of different collection methods on ModelNet40.[]{data - label="tab: aggregation " } 

 Table \[tab: application\ ] shows the experimental results of classification and retrieval on ModelNet40, comparing our work with representative methods. It is shown that, as a mesh - based representation, MeshNet achieves satisfying performance and makes bang-up improvement compared with traditional mesh - free-base methods. It is also comparable with
okog2017escape]        point    91.8    -
  KCNet [@sheu2018nining]           poivt    91.0    -
  SPH [@kazhdan2003rotatmon]         mesh    68.2   33.3
  MeshNeg                            mesi    91.9   81.9
  -------------------------------- -------- ------ ------

  : Clavwification and retrieval results on MogeuNzt40.[]{data-label="tab:application"}

For classifycation, wf apply fully-cjnnebtqd lzjevs (512, 256, 40) to the global features as fhe clavsifier, and acd dropout layers with droo prlbability of 0.5 befoge the last two dully-connectdd layers. For retrievam, we calculate the L2 distances cetwezn the globql fewjures as simmlaritpes and evaluate the sesult eith mean aversge prwcision (mAP). We use thx SGD optimizer for jraining, whtk initial learning rare 0.01, momgntum 0.9, wektht dedab 0.0005 znd bahch size 64.

  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Spatiql                          $\checkmadk$   $\creskmark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmdrk$
  Structural-FRC    $\checjmark$                                 $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$
  Structgral-FIZ    $\ghecynagk$                  $\checkmark$                  $\cnebkmark$   $\checkmarh$
  Mesh Conf         $\checkmary$   $\chzdkjark$   $\checkmark$   $\checkmwrk$                  $\checkmark$
  Accuracy (%)          83.5           88.2           87.0           89.9           90.4           91.9
  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  : Clcssifidation resupts of abmxtion experimentr ok MmdelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:ablatiog"}

  Aggregetion Method    Sccurasy (%)
  -------------------- --------------
  Avfrage Pooling           90.7
  Max Pmoling               91.1
  Concatenation             91.9

  : Claxshfibation refults of different aggregation mgthods on ModeuNet40.[]{data-lagel="tab:ajgregation"}

Tafle \[tab:applicdjion\] shows thx experimqntao rewults ow classificatiom and retgitval on MoeelNet40, comparing omr wotk with representcuivt nethods. It is xhodn ehwt, af a mesh-based repfesdmtatiun, MeshNet ccfievrs satisfying perforkancs and makes great omirovement compareq with traditoonal mesh-based meuhods. Mt is elso cpmpwrable with
okov2017escape] point 91.8 - KCNet [@shen2018mining] point SPH mesh 68.2 MeshNet mesh 91.9 : and retrieval results ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:application"} For classification, apply fully-connected layers (512, 256, 40) the global features as the classifier, and add dropout layers with drop probability 0.5 before the last two fully-connected layers. For retrieval, we calculate the L2 between global as and evaluate the result with mean average precision (mAP). We use the SGD optimizer for training, initial learning rate 0.01, momentum 0.9, weight decay and batch size 64. -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- Spatial $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ Structural-FKC $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ Mesh Conv $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ Accuracy (%) 83.5 88.2 87.0 89.9 90.4 ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- : results ablation experiments on Method Accuracy (%) -------------------- -------------- Average Pooling 91.1 Concatenation 91.9 : Classification results of aggregation methods ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:aggregation"} Table \[tab:application\] shows the experimental of classification and retrieval on ModelNet40, comparing our with representative methods. It is shown that, as a mesh-based representation, MeshNet achieves satisfying performance great improvement compared with mesh-based methods. It also with
okov2017escape]        point    91.8    -
  KCNet [@shen2018mIning]           point    91.0    -
  sPH [@kaZhdAn2003rOtAtioN]         mesH    68.2   33.3
  MeshNet                            mesh    91.9   81.9
  -------------------------------- -------- ------ ------

  : ClASsifIcation and retrieval resUlts oN MODelNET40.[]{dAta-laBel="tab:aPPlICAtiOn"}

foR clAsSIfIcatiOn, wE apply fUlly-connecTed LaYers (512, 256, 40) to the gloBAl Features as The Classifier, anD adD dropoUt LayERs witH drOp proBabiliTY of 0.5 befOre the lasT tWO fully-COnnecteD LAyErs. FOr retrieval, we calcULaTE the L2 distances BetweeN tHE gLOBal FeaTures as simIlAritiES and evaLUaTE THe rESult with mean aVerage preciSIon (MAP). We uSe The sgD optiMizer FoR TraIning, with inItiaL learning Rate 0.01, moMEntum 0.9, weIGht decaY 0.0005 and baTch SizE 64.

  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  SpaTIaL                          $\cHecKmARk$   $\cHEcKmaRK$   $\chEckmark$   $\cHeCkMark$   $\cHeckMARK$
  struCtuRal-FrC    $\cheCkmark$                                 $\checkmaRk$   $\cHeckMArk$   $\CheckMark$
  STrucTuRal-FKc    $\checkMark$                  $\cHeCkmark$                  $\checkmark$   $\ChecKmark$
  Mesh conV         $\cHecKmArk$   $\chECkmark$   $\CheCkmArk$   $\checKmark$                  $\chECkmArK$
  aCCuRacy (%)          83.5           88.2           87.0           89.9           90.4           91.9
  ---------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

  : Classification ReSULtS of ablatIon expERiMeNTs on ModeLNEt40.[]{dAta-lABEl="tab:AblaTIoN"}

  AggregaTion MeTHoD    ACcuracy (%)
  -------------------- --------------
  avErage POoLinG           90.7
  MaX PoolINg               91.1
  CoNcatenAtion             91.9

  : ClaSsifiCAtion results of DIfferent aggreGAtION mEThodS on modelNet40.[]{datA-labEL="tab:AggrEGaTioN"}

table \[Tab:apPlICaTIon\] shows the experimeNtAl resuLts of ClassificatioN and retrieVAL On ModelNEt40, coMPaRIng our work with RepreSentative mEThods. It iS showN that, as a Mesh-based REPresentaTioN, MeShNEt aCHIeVes satisfying PERforMaNce and mAkeS great iMprOveMenT coMpAred with tRaditionAl MeSh-BaSed MethoDS. It is alsO cOmpArAblE with
okov2017escape]        poi nt    91.8     - 
 KCN et  [@s hen2 018mining]        point    91.0    -
 SPH[@ k azhd a n2 003ro tation]     m es h  6 8. 2   3 3.3 
  Mesh Net                      mesh    9 1.9    81.9
  -- --- ------ -- --- - ----- --- ----- -- --- - ---- - ----- --- -- - 

  :C lassifi c a ti on a nd retrieval resu l ts on ModelNet40. []{dat a- l ab e l ="t ab: applicatio n" }

Fo r  classi f ic a t i on, we apply full y-connected lay ers (5 12 , 2 5 6, 40)  to t he glo bal feature s as  the clas sifier ,  and ad d  dropou t laye rswit h dr o ppr oba bi l ity of  0. 5  be fore the  l as t two  ful l y - c onne cte d la yers.  For retrieva l,we c a lcu latethe L 2 di st ances  betwe en th eglobal features  assimilarit ies  a ndev aluat e  the r esu ltwith me an aver a gepr e c i si on (mAP). We use t he S GD  optimiz er for tr ai n ing, wit hini tial l earni ng r a te  0.01, m omentu m  0 .9 , weigh tdecay0. 000 5 a nd ba t ch s ize 64 .

  --- ----- - ------- ------ - ------- ----- - -- - - -- - - -- --- --------- - ---- - ---- ---- -- --- - ----- --- - -- - -- - -------
  Spatial                      $\ checkmark$ $\checkm ark$  $ \checkmark$  $\che ckmark$  $ \checkma rk$
 Structu ral-FRC $\checkm ark $                      $\check mar k$   $\ che ckm ark $  $ \checkmar k$
  Str uc tu ra l- FKC     $ \ checkmar k$              $\ check mark $          $ \che ck ma rk$  $ \c heckm ark$   M esh Con v        $\ c heck ma rk $   $\c heckmark$   $ \c heckmark$ $\c heckma r k $                 $\checkmark$   Accur acy  (%)        83.5          8 8 .2         87.0        8 9 . 9        90.4      91 .9
 ------ ---------- ------- - --- --- --------- --- -- - - - -- --- - -- - ---- - --- - - ------ -------- ------ --- -- - -- ------

 :  Cl as sificat ion res ultso f ablat ion exper iments on  M odel N e t40 .[]{data-l abel="ta b:ablatio n "}

Ag grega tio n Meth od    Accu racy ( % )
 ---- ------ -- ------ -- -- -- -------- --
  Average Pooling         90. 7
 Max Pool ing             91 .1
  Conca ten ati on         91. 9 
  : Class ific a tion resu l ts  of d if ferent aggr e g a tio n met hod s  on Mo delN et40.[]{data-labe l ="tab:aggregat ion" } 
Ta ble \[ta b: application\]sho ws t he exper im ental resul ts of cl as s ifica tion a nd ret rievalo n  M o delNet 40,com paring ou r w or k  with r ep re s entati ve m et hods.It iss hown t hat, as a mesh-b asedr e prese n tat ion,Me shNet a c hiev es satisfy ing perform ance a nd m akesgreat i mp roveme ntco mpared wit h  traditio nal m esh-bas ed  met hod s. Itis a l s o com para bl e w ith
okov2017escape] _ _   _point __ 91.8__  -
_ KCNet [@shen2018mining]_   _  __  point    91.0    -
  SPH [@kazhdan2003rotation]__ ___   mesh _  68.2  _33.3
 _MeshNet       __  _        _     _ mesh ___91.9   81.9
_ -------------------------------- -------- ------ ------

 _: Classification and retrieval results on_ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:application"}

For classification, we apply fully-connected layers (512,_256, 40) to the global features_as the classifier, and add_dropout layers_with drop probability of 0.5_before the last_two fully-connected_layers. For retrieval,_we calculate the L2 distances between_the global features_as similarities and evaluate the result_with_mean average precision_(mAP)._We_use the_SGD optimizer for_training,_with initial_learning_rate 0.01, momentum 0.9, weight decay_0.0005_and batch size 64.

  ---------------- --------------_-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------_--------------
_ Spatial  _    _     _ _ _        $\checkmark$  _$\checkmark$   $\checkmark$  _$\checkmark$   $\checkmark$
_ Structural-FRC__  $\checkmark$__ _      _ _     _   __     _   $\checkmark$  _$\checkmark$   $\checkmark$
 _Structural-FKC__  $\checkmark$  _     _  _      $\checkmark$__     __     ___ $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$
_ Mesh Conv   _     $\checkmark$   $\checkmark$_  $\checkmark$_  $\checkmark$  ___         _ _ $\checkmark$
 _Accuracy (%)        _ 83.5     _     88.2     _     87.0  _      _ 89.9  __      _90.4___  _  _  91.9
_ ----------------_-------------- -------------- --------------_-------------- --------------_--------------

  :_Classification_results of ablation experiments on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:ablation"}

  Aggregation Method    Accuracy (%)
  -------------------- --------------
 _Average Pooling    _    __90.7
  Max_Pooling   _       _   91.1
  Concatenation   __ _   _ _91.9

 _: Classification results_of different_aggregation methods_on ModelNet40.[]{data-label="tab:aggregation"}

Table_\[tab:application\] shows the experimental results of classification_and_retrieval on ModelNet40, comparing our work with representative methods._It_is_shown_that, as a_mesh-based representation, MeshNet_achieves satisfying performance_and makes great_improvement_compared with traditional mesh-based methods. It_is also comparable_with