MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160403431 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.02392

Fusion 360 Gallery: A Dataset and Environment for Programmatic CAD Construction from Human Design Sequences

2020· preprint· en· W3160403431 on OpenAlexaff
Karl D. D. Willis, Yewen Pu, Jieliang Luo, Hang Chu, Tao Du, Joseph G. Lambourne, Armando Solar-Lezama, Wojciech Matusik

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCADComputer scienceComputer Aided DesignSketchTask (project management)Parametric statisticsSoftwareProcess (computing)Parametric modelEngineering drawingParametric designSoftware engineeringHuman–computer interactionMachine learningProgramming languageSystems engineeringEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parametric computer-aided design (CAD) is a standard paradigm used to design manufactured objects, where a 3D shape is represented as a program supported by the CAD software. Despite the pervasiveness of parametric CAD and a growing interest from the research community, currently there does not exist a dataset of realistic CAD models in a concise programmatic form. In this paper we present the Fusion 360 Gallery, consisting of a simple language with just the sketch and extrude modeling operations, and a dataset of 8,625 human design sequences expressed in this language. We also present an interactive environment called the Fusion 360 Gym, which exposes the sequential construction of a CAD program as a Markov decision process, making it amendable to machine learning approaches. As a use case for our dataset and environment, we define the CAD reconstruction task of recovering a CAD program from a target geometry. We report results of applying state-of-the-art methods of program synthesis with neurally guided search on this task.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.013

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.083 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207