Natural Boundary Conditions for Smoothing in Geometry Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In geometry processing, smoothness energies are commonly used to model scattered data interpolation, dense data denoising, and regularization during shape optimization. The squared Laplacian energy is a popular choice of energy and has a corresponding standard implementation: squaring the discrete Laplacian matrix. For compact domains, when values along the boundary are not known in advance, this construction bakes in low-order boundary conditions. This causes the geometric shape of the boundary to strongly bias the solution. For many applications, this is undesirable. Instead, we propose using the squared Frobenius norm of the Hessian as a smoothness energy. Unlike the squared Laplacian energy, this energy’s natural boundary conditions (those that best minimize the energy) correspond to meaningful high-order boundary conditions. These boundary conditions model free boundaries where the shape of the boundary should not bias the solution locally. Our analysis begins in the smooth setting and concludes with discretizations using finite-differences on 2D grids or mixed finite elements for triangle meshes. We demonstrate the core behavior of the squared Hessian as a smoothness energy for various tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".