MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330536347 · doi:10.1115/detc2007-34970

Reverse Engineering of Geometric Surfaces Using Tabu Search Optimization Technique

2007· article· en· W2330536347 on OpenAlexaff
Ayman M. A. Youssef, Ashraf O. Nassef, Sayed M. Metwalli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTabu searchSequential quadratic programmingMATLABAlgorithmMathematical optimizationComputer scienceData pointQuadratic programmingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creating unavailable geometric models from existing parts plays an important role in the process of reverse engineering, for which the accuracy and fitting time of the created models are important factors. This paper proposes the use of Tabu Search (TS) technique in the optimal fitting of NURBS (Non Uniform Rational B-Spline) surfaces to laser-scanned point clouds of free-form surfaces for existing parts. The fitting process involves the initial estimation of the NURBS surface control points using least-squares approximation, followed by optimization of NURBS weights to minimize fitting error. Optimization is performed using a hybrid coding scheme, namely; Modified Continuous Reactive Tabu Search (M-C-RTS), in which a combinatorial optimization component, based on Reactive Tabu Search (RTS), co-operates with Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP), as a local minimizer. The developed fitting algorithm was applied to a number of simulated free-form surfaces in addition to a laser-scanned PC mouse. Implementation was carried out using MATLAB software and the results were compared to those obtained using Genetic Algorithms (GAs) in an earlier publication. The results show the superiority of the proposed algorithm to the GA-based method with respect to the number of objective function evaluations (about 50% reduction). In addition to this time saving achievement, and surprisingly, M-C-RTS proved to be capable of finding better solutions than GAs.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207