Dapper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We pose the decompose-and-pack or DAP problem, which tightly combines shape decomposition and packing. While in general, DAP seeks to decompose an input shape into a small number of parts which can be efficiently packed, our focus is geared towards 3D printing. The goal is to optimally decompose-and-pack a 3D object into a printing volume to minimize support material, build time, and assembly cost. We present Dapper , a global optimization algorithm for the DAP problem which can be applied to both powder- and FDM-based 3D printing. The solution search is top-down and iterative. Starting with a coarse decomposition of the input shape into few initial parts, we progressively pack a pile in the printing volume, by iteratively docking parts, possibly while introducing cuts, onto the pile. Exploration of the search space is via a prioritized and bounded beam search , with breadth and depth pruning guided by local and global DAP objectives. A key feature of Dapper is that it works with pyramidal primitives, which are packing- and printing-friendly. Pyramidal shapes are also more general than boxes to reduce part counts, while still maintaining a suitable level of simplicity to facilitate DAP optimization. We demonstrate printing efficiency gains achieved by Dapper, compare to state-of-the-art alternatives, and show how fabrication criteria such as cut area and part size can be easily incorporated into our solution framework to produce more physically plausible fabrications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.031 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".