Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce the foldabilization problem for space-saving furniture design. Namely, given a 3D object representing a piece of furniture, our goal is to apply a minimum amount of modification to the object so that it can be folded to save space --- the object is thus foldabilized. We focus on one instance of the problem where folding is with respect to a prescribed folding direction and allowed object modifications include hinge insertion and part shrinking. We develop an automatic algorithm for foldabilization by formulating and solving a nested optimization problem operating at two granularity levels of the input shape. Specifically, the input shape is first partitioned into a set of integral folding units. For each unit, we construct a graph which encodes conflict relations, e.g., collisions, between foldings implied by various patch foldabilizations within the unit. Finding a minimum-cost foldabilization with a conflict-free folding is an instance of the maximum-weight independent set problem. In the outer loop of the optimization, we process the folding units in an optimized ordering where the units are sorted based on estimated foldabilization costs. We show numerous foldabilization results computed at interactive speed and 3D-print physical prototypes of these results to demonstrate manufacturability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".