Variational B-rep model analysis for direct modeling using geometric perturbation
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 The very recent CAD paradigm of direct modeling gives rise to the need of processing 3D geometric constraint systems defined on boundary representation (B-rep) models. The major issue of processing such variational B-rep models (in the STEP format) is that free motions of a well-constrained model involve more than just rigid-body motions. The fundamental difficulty lies in having a systematic description of what pattern these free motions follow. This paper proposes a geometric perturbation method to study these free motions. This method is a generalization of the witness method, allowing it to directly deal with variational B-rep models represented by the STEP format. This generalization is essentially achieved by using a direct, geometric representation of the free motions, and then expressing the free motions in terms of composites of several basis motions. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, a series of comparisons and case studies are presented. Highlights A new method to analyze geometric constraint systems for direct modeling. A generalization of the witness configuration method. A new method to characterize the constraint states of variational B-rep models.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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