Solid Geometry Processing on Deconstructed Domains
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many tasks in geometry processing are modelled as variational problems solved numerically using the finite element method. For solid shapes, this requires a volumetric discretization, such as a boundary conforming tetrahedral mesh. Unfortunately, tetrahedral meshing remains an open challenge and existing methods either struggle to conform to complex boundary surfaces or require manual intervention to prevent failure. Rather than create a single volumetric mesh for the entire shape, we advocate for solid geometry processing on deconstructed domains , where a large and complex shape is composed of overlapping solid subdomains. As each smaller and simpler part is now easier to tetrahedralize, the question becomes how to account for overlaps during problem modelling and how to couple solutions on each subdomain together algebraically . We explore how and why previous coupling methods fail, and propose a method that couples solid domains only along their boundary surfaces. We demonstrate the superiority of this method through empirical convergence tests and qualitative applications to solid geometry processing on a variety of popular second‐order and fourth‐order partial differential equations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it