Sketch-based implicit blending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implicit models can be combined by using composition operators; functions that determine the resulting shape. Recently, gradient-based composition operators have been used to express a variety of behaviours including smooth transitions, sharp edges, contact surfaces, bulging, or any combinations. The problem for designers is that building new operators is a complex task that requires specialized technical knowledge. In this work, we introduce an automatic method for deriving a gradient-based implicit operator from 2D drawings that prototype the intended visual behaviour. To solve this inverse problem, in which a shape defines a function, we introduce a general template for implicit operators. A user's sketch is interpreted as samples in the 3D operator's domain. We fit the template to the samples with a non-rigid registration approach. The process works at interactive rates and can accommodate successive refinements by the user. The final result can be applied to 3D surfaces as well as to 2D shapes. Our method is able to replicate the effect of any blending operator presented in the literature, as well as generating new ones such as non-commutative operators. We demonstrate the usability of our method with examples in font-design, collision-response modeling, implicit skinning, and complex shape design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".