MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148852797 · doi:10.1145/2185520.2185592

Efficient geometrically exact continuous collision detection

2012· article· en· W2148852797 on OpenAlexaff
Tyson Brochu, Essex Edwards, Robert Bridson

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollision detectionComputer scienceSolverRoundingAlgorithmCollisionCurvatureNonlinear systemDegenerate energy levelsMathematicsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous collision detection (CCD) between deforming triangle mesh elements in 3D is a critical tool for many applications. The standard method involving a cubic polynomial solver is vulnerable to rounding error, requiring the use of ad hoc tolerances, and nevertheless is particularly fragile in (near-)planar cases. Even with per-simulation tuning, it may still cause problems by missing collisions or erroneously flagging non-collisions. We present a geometrically exact alternative guaranteed to produce the correct Boolean result (significant collision or not) as if calculated with exact arithmetic, even in degenerate scenarios. Our critical insight is that only the parity of the number of collisions is needed for robust simulation, and this parity can be calculated with simpler non-constructive predicates. In essence we analyze the roots of the nonlinear system of equations defining CCD through careful consideration of the boundary of the parameter domain. The use of new conservative culling and interval filters allows typical simulations to run as fast as with the non-robust version, but without need for tuning or worries about failure cases even in geometrically degenerate scenarios. We demonstrate the effectiveness of geometrically exact detection with a novel adaptive cloth simulation, the first to guarantee to remain intersection-free despite frequent curvature-driven remeshing.

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)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
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

Citations117
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207