MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tangential Distance Fields for Mesh Silhouette Problems

2009· article· en· W1983187666 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

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilhouetteTangentTangent spaceComputer scienceTriangle meshSurface (topology)MathematicsPoint (geometry)AlgorithmComputer visionGeometryArtificial intelligencePolygon mesh

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aabstract We consider a tangent‐space representation of surfaces that maps each point on a surface to the tangent plane of the surface at that point. Such representations are known to facilitate the solution of several visibility problems, in particular, those involving silhouette analysis. In this paper, we introduce a novel class of distance fields for a given surface defined by its tangent planes. At each point in space, we assign a scalar value which is a weighted sum of distances to these tangent planes. We call the resulting scalar field a ‘tangential distance field’ (TDF). When applied to triangle mesh models, the tangent planes become supporting planes of the mesh triangles. The weighting scheme used to construct a TDF for a given mesh and the way the TDF is utilized can be closely tailored to a specific application. At the same time, the TDFs are continuous, lending themselves to standard optimization techniques such as greedy local search, thus leading to efficient algorithms. In this paper, we use four applications to illustrate the benefit of using TDFs: multi‐origin silhouette extraction in Hough space, silhouette‐based view point selection, camera path planning and light source placement.

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)0.000
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 score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · 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