Bibliographic record
Abstract
Popular Virtual Reality (VR) tools allow users to draw varying-width, ribbonlike 3D brush strokes by moving a hand-held controller in 3D space. Artists frequently use dense collections of such strokes to draw virtual 3D shapes. We propose SurfaceBrush , a surfacing method that converts such VR drawings into user-intended manifold free-form 3D surfaces, providing a novel approach for modeling 3D shapes. The inputs to our method consist of dense collections of artist-drawn stroke ribbons described by the positions and normals of their central polylines, and ribbon widths. These inputs are highly distinct from those handled by existing surfacing frameworks and exhibit different sparsity and error patterns, necessitating a novel surfacing approach. We surface the input stroke drawings by identifying and leveraging local coherence between nearby artist strokes. In particular, we observe that strokes intended to be adjacent on the artist imagined surface often have similar tangent directions along their respective polylines. We leverage this local stroke direction consistency by casting the computation of the user-intended manifold surface as a constrained matching problem on stroke polyline vertices and edges. We first detect and smoothly connect adjacent similarly-directed sequences of stroke edges producing one or more manifold partial surfaces. We then complete the surfacing process by identifying and connecting adjacent similarly directed edges along the borders of these partial surfaces. We confirm the usability of the SurfaceBrush interface and the validity of our drawing analysis via an observational study. We validate our stroke surfacing algorithm by demonstrating an array of manifold surfaces computed by our framework starting from a range of inputs of varying complexity, and by comparing our outputs to reconstructions computed using alternative means.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.107 | 0.032 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".