Interactive Rendering of Acquired Materials on Dynamic Geometry Using Frequency Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shading acquired materials with high-frequency illumination is computationally expensive. Estimating the shading integral requires multiple samples of the incident illumination. The number of samples required may vary across the image, and the image itself may have high- and low-frequency variations, depending on a combination of several factors. Adaptively distributing computational budget across the pixels for shading is a challenging problem. In this paper, we depict complex materials such as acquired reflectances, interactively, without any precomputation based on geometry. In each frame, we first estimate the frequencies in the local light field arriving at each pixel, as well as the variance of the shading integrand. Our frequency analysis accounts for combinations of a variety of factors: the reflectance of the object projecting to the pixel, the nature of the illumination, the local geometry and the camera position relative to the geometry and lighting. We then exploit this frequency information (bandwidth and variance) to adaptively sample for reconstruction and integration. For example, fewer pixels per unit area are shaded for pixels projecting onto diffuse objects, and fewer samples are used for integrating illumination incident on specular objects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".