MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074217677 · doi:10.1145/2766975

WorldBrush

2015· article· en· W2074217677 on OpenAlexaff
Arnaud Emilien, Ulysse Vimont, Marie‐Paule Cani, Pierre Poulin, Bedřich Beneš

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalette (painting)Computer scienceComputer graphics (images)PaintingSet (abstract data type)Consistency (knowledge bases)Range (aeronautics)TerrainMetaverseProcedural modelingArtificial intelligenceVirtual realityVisual artsArtProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel approach for the interactive synthesis and editing of virtual worlds. Our method is inspired by painting operations and uses methods for statistical example-based synthesis to automate content synthesis and deformation. Our real-time approach takes a form of local inverse procedural modeling based on intermediate statistical models: selected regions of procedurally and manually constructed example scenes are analyzed, and their parameters are stored as distributions in a palette, similar to colors on a painter's palette. These distributions can then be interactively applied with brushes and combined in various ways, like in painting systems. Selected regions can also be moved or stretched while maintaining the consistency of their content. Our method captures both distributions of elements and structured objects, and models their interactions. Results range from the interactive editing of 2D artwork maps to the design of 3D virtual worlds, where constraints set by the terrain's slope are also taken into account.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.015

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.308
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

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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations69
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207