MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907285024 · doi:10.1109/cw.2018.00017

LifeBrush: Painting Interactive Agent-Based Simulations

2018· article· en· W2907285024 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy Davison, Faramarz Samavati, Christian Jacob

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalette (painting)SketchComputer scienceInteractivityComputer graphics (images)PaintingTexture mappingHuman–computer interactionMulti-agent systemArtificial intelligenceMultimediaAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building and interacting with 3D agent-based simulations that contain a large number of agents is a significant challenge. What if we want to create an intricate new arrangement of agents, or reconfigure a large number of agents? We present LifeBrush, a cyberworld for interactively painting large and elaborate multi-agent simulations with commodity virtual reality systems that we can then simulate and explore. Our main methodology uses sketch-based discrete element texture synthesis to paint agent arrangements. We define a map to convert agents to elements in this framework when we paint and back to agents when we simulate. Like creating new colors on a paint palette, we create example agent arrangements and configurations in an example palette. We paint new agents into a scene with sketch-based generative brushes. We also use those brushes to reconfigure agents to match examples created in the palette. Then we simulate, pause the simulation and modify the agents with our sketch-based tools. This iteration loop enables new levels of interactivity for the design, simulation, and exploration of agent-based simulations.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207