A Large-scale Benchmark and an Inclusion-based Algorithm for Continuous Collision Detection
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
We introduce a large-scale benchmark for continuous collision detection (CCD) algorithms, composed of queries manually constructed to highlight challenging degenerate cases and automatically generated using existing simulators to cover common cases. We use the benchmark to evaluate the accuracy, correctness, and efficiency of state-of-the-art continuous collision detection algorithms, both with and without minimal separation. We discover that, despite the widespread use of CCD algorithms, existing algorithms are (1) correct but impractically slow; (2) efficient but incorrect, introducing false negatives that will lead to interpenetration; or (3) correct but over conservative, reporting a large number of false positives that might lead to inaccuracies when integrated in a simulator. By combining the seminal interval root finding algorithm introduced by Snyder in 1992 with modern predicate design techniques, we propose a simple and efficient CCD algorithm. This algorithm is competitive with state-of-the-art methods in terms of runtime while conservatively reporting the time of impact and allowing explicit tradeoff between runtime efficiency and number of false positives reported.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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