MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736651773 · doi:10.1145/3072959.3073669

Dynamics-aware numerical coarsening for fabrication design

2017· article· en· W2736651773 on OpenAlexaff
Desai Chen, David I. W. Levin, Wojciech Matusik, Danny M. Kaufman

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceJumpGraphicsRange (aeronautics)FabricationComputer graphicsSimulationContact dynamicsCreaturesRobotComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceMechanicsAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The realistic simulation of highly-dynamic elastic objects is important for a broad range of applications in computer graphics, engineering and computational fabrication. However, whether simulating flipping toys, jumping robots, prosthetics or quickly moving creatures, performing such simulations in the presence of contact, impact and friction is both time consuming and inaccurate. In this paper we present Dynamics-Aware Coarsening (DAC) and the Boundary Balanced Impact (BBI) model which allow for the accurate simulation of dynamic, elastic objects undergoing both large scale deformation and frictional contact, at rates up to 79 times faster than state-of-the-art methods. DAC and BBI produce simulations that are accurate and fast enough to be used (for the first time) for the computational design of 3D-printable compliant dynamic mechanisms. Thus we demonstrate the efficacy of DAC and BBI by designing and fabricating mechanisms which flip, throw and jump over and onto obstacles as requested.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations70
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207