MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952669938 · doi:10.1145/3230635

Volume Path Guiding Based on Zero-Variance Random Walk Theory

2019· article· en· W2952669938 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Herholz, Yangyang Zhao, Oskár Elek, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Hendrik P. A. Lensch, Jaroslav Křivánek

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersGrantová Agentura České RepublikyUniverzita Karlova v Praze
KeywordsRadianceImportance samplingGlobal illuminationComputer sciencePath tracingSampling (signal processing)Path (computing)ScatteringAlgorithmVariance reductionRouletteVariance (accounting)Monte Carlo methodMathematical optimizationRendering (computer graphics)MathematicsStatisticsComputer visionOpticsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficiency of Monte Carlo methods, commonly used to render participating media, is directly linked to the manner in which random sampling decisions are made during path construction. Notably, path construction is influenced by scattering direction and distance sampling, Russian roulette, and splitting strategies. We present a consistent suite of volumetric path construction techniques where all these sampling decisions are guided by a cached estimate of the adjoint transport solution . The proposed strategy is based on the theory of zero-variance path sampling schemes, accounting for the spatial and directional variation in volumetric transport. Our key technical contribution, enabling the use of this approach in the context of volume light transport, is a novel guiding strategy for sampling the particle collision distance proportionally to the product of transmittance and the adjoint transport solution (e.g., in-scattered radiance). Furthermore, scattering directions are likewise sampled according to the product of the phase function and the incident radiance estimate. Combined with guided Russian roulette and splitting strategies tailored to volumes, we demonstrate about an order-of-magnitude error reduction compared to standard unidirectional methods. Consequently, our approach can render scenes otherwise intractable for such methods, while still retaining their simplicity (compared to, e.g., bidirectional methods).

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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