MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992194971 · doi:10.1145/1364901.1364945

Mitered offset of a mesh using QEM and vertex split

2008· article· en· W1992194971 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersArmy Research OfficeDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationNorth Carolina State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOffset (computer science)Vertex (graph theory)ComputationAlgorithmTriangle meshComputer scienceMachiningPolygon meshGeometryMathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)CombinatoricsGraphEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a mitered offsetting method of a triangular mesh. Though our main target application is machining tool path generation, it can also be applied to shelling/hollowing of solid objects, collision avoidance in robot path planning, and so on. Previous literature on mesh offsetting mostly suggest inserting a portion of a cylinder (or a ball) in order to fill the gap between offset faces adjacent to a sharp edge (or a sharp vertex, respectively). The gap filling elements (cylinders or balls) are approximated by a number of small triangles depending on the offset error tolerance. Those small gap filling triangles not only increase tool path computation time, but also cause harmful effect in the accuracy of the machined result around the sharp edges. In this research, we try to reduce the number of gap filling triangles while meeting the given tolerance by introducing the concept of mitered offset, which is popularly used in 2D profile machining practice. We borrowed and modified the notion of quadric error metric (QEM) from the mesh simplification area. A modified version of QEM is used for robust computation of the offset vertex position which minimizes the sum of squared distance error from the faces around the original mesh vertex. If the error is within tolerance, the offset vertex is accepted. Otherwise, the offset vertex is split repeatedly until the error is acceptable. Vertex split occurs at the sharp features. A rigorous foundation is given to the mitered offset of 3D mesh with sharp features as well as smooth regions. The experimental results indicate that only a small number of triangles are added in offset mesh.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207