MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168786072 · doi:10.1111/cgf.142639

Patch Erosion for Deformable Lapped Textures on 3D Fluids

2021· article· en· W3168786072 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Gagnon, Julián E. Guzmán, David Mould, Eric Paquette

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceTexture (cosmology)Artifact (error)Feature (linguistics)Filling-inDistortion (music)Displacement mappingErosionAnimationProcess (computing)Computer graphics (images)Texture mappingGeologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose an approach to synthesise a texture on an animated fluid free surface using a distortion metric combined with a feature map. Our approach is applied as a post‐process to a fluid simulation. We advect deformable patches to move the texture along the fluid flow. The patches are covering the whole surface every frame of the animation in an overlapping fashion. Using lapped textures combined with deformable patches, we successfully remove blending artifact and rigid artifact seen in previous methods. We remain faithful to the texture exemplar by removing distorted patch texels using a patch erosion process. The patch erosion is based on a feature map provided together with the exemplar as inputs to our approach. The erosion favors removing texels toward the boundary of the patch as well as texels corresponding to more distorted regions of the patch. Where texels are removed leaving a gap on the surface, we add new patches below existing ones. The result is an animated texture following the velocity field of the fluid. We compared our results with recent work and our results show that our approach removes ghosting and temporal fading artifacts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207