MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171602937 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2006.113

A Spectral Analysis of Function Composition and its Implications for Sampling in Direct Volume Visualization

2006· article· en· W2171602937 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven Bergner, Torsten Möller, Daniel Weiskopf, David J. Muraki

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRendering (computer graphics)Volume renderingVisualizationTransfer functionComputer scienceScalar (mathematics)AlgorithmMathematicsGeometryComputer graphics (images)Data mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we investigate the effects of function composition in the form g(f(x)) = h(x) by means of a spectral analysis of h. We decompose the spectral description of h(x) into a scalar product of the spectral description of g(x) and a term that solely depends on f(x) and that is independent of g(x). We then use the method of stationary phase to derive the essential maximum frequency of g(f(x)) bounding the main portion of the energy of its spectrum. This limit is the product of the maximum frequency of g(x) and the maximum derivative of f(x). This leads to a proper sampling of the composition h of the two functions g and f. We apply our theoretical results to a fundamental open problem in volume rendering-the proper sampling of the rendering integral after the application of a transfer function. In particular, we demonstrate how the sampling criterion can be incorporated in adaptive ray integration, visualization with multi-dimensional transfer functions, and pre-integrated volume rendering.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations42
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer GraphicsSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207