[D83] High-Fidelity Contact Rendering: Feel realistic forces from virtual objects!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A haptic interface enables the user to interact with virtual environments, and sense virtual objects. The key to producing realistic feeling is to feed back a contact force that closely emulates its physical counterpart. In this demo, we demonstrate the application of the High-Fidelity Contact Rendering framework developed by our research group at McGill to a billiard haptic game. The classic one-dimensional spring-damper virtual coupling has been generalized to a 5-DoF force feedback virtual tool. This virtual tool (the cue) is formulated as a spatial viscoelastic beam element with energy-consistent force feedback, and couples the haptic device to the virtual objects (the billiard balls). The interaction between the cue and balls is described at the impulse level. Poisson's law for impacts with friction has been applied. The demo employs the W5D device by Entact Robotics, C++ S-functions based on the W5D API, Simulink Real-Time Workshop and the VRML Blockset.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".