Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spectral methods for mesh processing and analysis rely on the eigenvalues, eigenvectors, or eigenspace projections derived from appropriately defined mesh operators to carry out desired tasks. Early work in this area can be traced back to the seminal paper by Taubin in 1995, where spectral analysis of mesh geometry based on a combinatorial Laplacian aids our understanding of the low‐pass filtering approach to mesh smoothing. Over the past 15 years, the list of applications in the area of geometry processing which utilize the eigenstructures of a variety of mesh operators in different manners have been growing steadily. Many works presented so far draw parallels from developments in fields such as graph theory, computer vision, machine learning, graph drawing, numerical linear algebra, and high‐performance computing. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive survey on the spectral approach, focusing on its power and versatility in solving geometry processing problems and attempting to bridge the gap between relevant research in computer graphics and other fields. Necessary theoretical background is provided. Existing works covered are classified according to different criteria: the operators or eigenstructures employed, application domains, or the dimensionality of the spectral embeddings used. Despite much empirical success, there still remain many open questions pertaining to the spectral approach. These are discussed as we conclude the survey and provide our perspective on possible future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".