MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124671353 · doi:10.1109/isvd.2010.25

Smooth Morphing Delaunay Triangulation

2010· article· en· W2124671353 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Liu, Jon Rokne, Marina L. Gavrilova

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelaunay triangulationMorphingVertex (graph theory)Computer scienceMerge (version control)QuadrilateralConstrained Delaunay triangulationDiagonalAlgorithmComputer graphicsComputer graphics (images)MathematicsTheoretical computer scienceGeometryPhysicsGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of applications nowadays deal with complex dynamical problems where the data sets and interactions change over time. One of the ways to effectively deal with such problems is to employ Delaunay triangulation (DT). The structure however is well known to undergo significant changes when vertices are inserted or removed. A DT with dynamical updates displays visualization artifacts with non-smooth motions when viewed over time. The topic of this paper is smooth morphing of a DT under such circumstances. We address the issue by a series of simple operations carried out over time. Specifically, when a vertex is inserted at certain point, we split an existing vertex into two and slide one of them to the point. When a vertex is removed, we slide it towards one of its neighbors, and then merge the two vertices. For both cases, the DT properties are restored by collecting and then flipping illegal edges. This is performed by sliding a temporary vertex in two phases along two diagonals of the quadrilateral incident to the edge. The proposed algorithm has applications in dynamical computer graphics where temporal continuity is important. We validate the proposed algorithm by experiments.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207