MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138483787 · doi:10.1109/iccsa.2008.65

A Discrete Approach to Multiresolution Curves and Surfaces

2008· article· en· W2138483787 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Olsen, Faramarz Samavati

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubdivisionBiorthogonal waveletSubdivision surfaceBiorthogonal systemRepresentation (politics)Multiresolution analysisComputer scienceConstraint (computer-aided design)WaveletSimple (philosophy)AmbisonicsBasis (linear algebra)Surface (topology)AlgorithmTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsTheoretical computer scienceWavelet transformArtificial intelligenceGeometryDiscrete wavelet transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subdivision surfaces have been widely adopted in modeling in part because they introduce a separation between the surface and the underlying basis functions. Such a separation allows for simple schemes that work on general topology surfaces. Multiresolution representations based on subdivision, however, incongruently return to continuous functional spaces in their construction and analysis. In this paper, we investigate a discrete approach to multiresolution construction for a variety of subdivision schemes, based only on the subdivision rules. Noting that a compact representation can only afford to store a subset of the detail information, our construction enforces a constraint between locally adjacent detail terms. In this way, all detail information is recoverable for reconstruction, and a decomposition approach is implied by the constraint. The construction is demonstrated with case studies in Dyn-Levin-Gregory curves and Catmull-Clark surfaces, each of which our method produces results as good as earlier methods. It is further shown that our construction can be interpreted as biorthogonal wavelet systems.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207