MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sketch‐Based Procedural Surface Modeling and Compositing Using Surface Trees

2008· article· en· W2080905110 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Schmidt, Karan Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsProcedural modelingCompositingComputer scienceSketchSurface (topology)Tree (set theory)Computer graphics (images)HierarchyOctreeTree structureData structureTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageImage (mathematics)GeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a system for creating and manipulating layered procedural surface editing operations, which is motivated by the limited support for iterative design in free‐form modeling. A combination of sketch‐based and traditional modeling tools are used to design soft displacements, sharp creases, extrusions along 3D paths, and topological holes and handles. Using local parameterizations, these edits are combined in a dynamic hierarchy, enabling procedural operations like linked copy‐and‐paste and drag‐and‐drop layer‐based editing. Such dynamic, layered “surface compositing” is formalized as a Surface Tree, an analog of CSG trees which generalizes previous hierarchical surface modeling techniques. By “anchoring” tree nodes in the parameter space of lower layers, our surface tree implementation can better preserve the semantics of an edit as the underlying surface changes. Details of our implementation are described, including an efficient procedural mesh data structure.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207