MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111579988 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2007.340

Towards a GPU-Based Simulation Framework for Deformable Surface Meshes

2007· article· en· W2111579988 on OpenAlexaff
Vidya Kotamraju, Shahram Payandeh, John C. Dill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNvidia
KeywordsComputer sciencePolygon meshComputational scienceGraphicsGraphics processing unitCUDAGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsSoftwareParallel computingSparse matrixComputer graphics (images)Matrix (chemical analysis)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Realism and real-time visual and haptic interactions with anatomical structures are key challenges in simulation software for surgeries. Overcoming these challenges is made difficult by the need to run the software on consumer-grade computing platforms. This paper presents preliminary work towards a framework for fast, realistic and stable simulation of deformable anatomical structures. The approach is to use implicit Euler's integration method to compute the deformations of the anatomy. This method is reformulated to exploit the inherent parallelism in the resulting simulation equations using Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) -a chip in many mid-range graphics cards. A dynamic surface mesh models the anatomy and a sparse, large linear system solved at each time step of the simulation models the deformations. The inverse of the large sparse matrix is computed as an approximation. The resulting large matrix manipulations are implemented on an NVIDIA GEForce 6600 GT GPU by using textures for storing mesh values and fragment-level programming for computing the new values due to deformations. The resulting simulation is compared with an explicit euler's integration-based simulation run on the CPU.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207