MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770517862 · doi:10.1145/3130800.3130897

Seamless

2017· article· en· W2770517862 on OpenAlexaff
Songrun Liu, Zachary Ferguson, Alec Jacobson, Yotam Gingold

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)SkinningPolygon meshComputer graphics (images)Parameterized complexityComputer visionAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A parameterization decouples the resolution of a signal on a surface from the resolution of the surface geometry. In practice, parameterized signals are conveniently and efficiently stored as texture images. Unfortunately, seams are inevitable when parametrizing most surfaces. Their visual artifacts are well known for color signals, but become even more egregious when geometry or displacement signals are used: cracks or gaps may appear in the surface. To make matters worse, parameterizations and their seams are frequently ignored during mesh processing. Carefully accounting for seams in one phase may be nullified by the next. The existing literature on seam-elimination requires non-standard rendering algorithms or else overly restricts the parameterization and signal. We present seam-aware mesh processing techniques. For a given fixed mesh, we analytically characterize the space of seam-free textures as the null space of a linear operator. Assuming seam-free textures, we describe topological and geometric conditions for seam-free edge-collapse operations. Our algorithms eliminate seam artifacts in parameterized signals and decimate a mesh---including its seams---while preserving its parameterization and seam-free appearance. This allows the artifact-free display of surface signals---color, normals, positions, displacements, linear blend skinning weights---with the standard GPU rendering pipeline. In particular, our techniques enable crack-free use of the tessellation stage of modern GPU's for dynamic level-of-detail. This decouples the shape signal from mesh resolution in a manner compatible with existing workflows.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1540.087

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
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

Citations35
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207