MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027276065 · doi:10.1145/2766905

Practical hex-mesh optimization via edge-cone rectification

2015· article· en· W2027276065 on OpenAlexafffund
Marco Livesu, Alla Sheffer, Nicholas Vining, Marco Tarini

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolygon meshHexahedronMathematical optimizationVolume meshComputer scienceSolverAlgorithmRobustness (evolution)MathematicsFinite element methodMesh generationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The usability of hexahedral meshes depends on the degree to which the shape of their elements deviates from a perfect cube; a single concave, or inverted element makes a mesh unusable. While a range of methods exist for discretizing 3D objects with an initial topologically suitable hex mesh, their output meshes frequently contain poorly shaped and even inverted elements, requiring a further quality optimization step. We introduce a novel framework for optimizing hex-mesh quality capable of generating inversion-free high-quality meshes from such poor initial inputs. We recast hex quality improvement as an optimization of the shape of overlapping cones, or unions, of tetrahedra surrounding every directed edge in the hex mesh, and show the two to be equivalent. We then formulate cone shape optimization as a sequence of convex quadratic optimization problems, where hex convexity is encoded via simple linear inequality constraints. As this solution space may be empty, we therefore present an alternate formulation which allows the solver to proceed even when constraints cannot be satisfied exactly. We iteratively improve mesh element quality by solving at each step a set of local, per-cone, convex constrained optimization problems, followed by a global energy minimization step which reconciles these local solutions. This latter method provides no theoretical guarantees on the solution but produces inversion-free, high quality meshes in practice. We demonstrate the robustness of our framework by optimizing numerous poor quality input meshes generated using a variety of initial meshing methods and producing high-quality inversion-free meshes in each case. We further validate our algorithm by comparing it against previous work, and demonstrate a significant improvement in both worst and average element quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207