MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972741546 · doi:10.1115/1.1846053

A Linear Programming Solution for Exact Collision Detection

2005· article· en· W1972741546 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollision detectionCollisionComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Linear programmingInter frameAlgorithmRegular polygonMathematical optimizationFrame (networking)MathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the issue of real-time collision detection between pairs of convex polyhedral objects undergoing fast rotational and translational motions. Accurate contact information between objects in virtual reality based simulations such as product design, assembly analysis, performance testing and ergonomic analysis of products are critical factors to explore when desired realism is to be achieved. For this purpose, fast, accurate and robust collision detection algorithms are required. The method described in the text models the exact collision detection problem between convex objects as a linear program. One of the strengths of the proposed methodology is its capability of addressing high speed interframe collision. In addition to the interframe collision detection, experimental data demonstrate that mathematical programming approaches offer promising results in terms of speed and robustness as well.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it