MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903151799 · doi:10.1145/3272127.3275033

3D fabrication with universal building blocks and pyramidal shells

2018· article· en· W2903151799 on OpenAlexaff
Xuelin Chen, Honghua Li, Chi‐Wing Fu, Hao Zhang, Daniel Cohen‐Or, Baoquan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersIsrael Science Foundation
KeywordsResidualComputer scienceFabrication3D printingMathematical optimizationVolume (thermodynamics)ComputationDecompositionSet (abstract data type)AlgorithmComputer engineeringComputational scienceMechanical engineeringMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a computational solution for cost-efficient 3D fabrication using universal building blocks. Our key idea is to employ a set of universal blocks, which can be massively prefabricated at a low cost, to quickly assemble and constitute a significant internal core of the target object, so that only the residual volume need to be 3D printed online. We further improve the fabrication efficiency by decomposing the residual volume into a small number of printing-friendly pyramidal pieces. Computationally, we face a coupled decomposition problem: decomposing the input object into an internal core and residual, and decomposing the residual, to fulfill a combination of objectives for efficient 3D fabrication. To this end, we formulate an optimization that jointly minimizes the residual volume, the number of pyramidal residual pieces, and the amount of support waste when printing the residual pieces. To solve the optimization in a tractable manner, we start with a maximal internal core and iteratively refine it with local cuts to minimize the cost function. Moreover, to efficiently explore the large search space, we resort to cost estimates aided by pre-computation and avoid the need to explicitly construct pyramidal decompositions for each solution candidate. Results show that our method can iteratively reduce the estimated printing time and cost, as well as the support waste, and helps to save hours of fabrication time and much material consumption.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207