Sketched Reality: Sketching Bi-Directional Interactions Between Virtual and Physical Worlds with AR and Actuated Tangible UI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces Sketched Reality, an approach that combines AR sketching and actuated tangible user interfaces (TUI) for bi-directional sketching interaction. Bi-directional sketching enables virtual sketches and physical objects to “affect” each other through physical actuation and digital computation. In the existing AR sketching, the relationship between virtual and physical worlds is only one-directional — while physical interaction can affect virtual sketches, virtual sketches have no return effect on the physical objects or environment. In contrast, bi-directional sketching interaction allows the seamless coupling between sketches and actuated TUIs. In this paper, we employ tabletop-size small robots (Sony Toio) and an iPad-based AR sketching tool to demonstrate the concept. In our system, virtual sketches drawn and simulated on an iPad (e.g., lines, walls, pendulums, and springs) can move, actuate, collide, and constrain physical Toio robots, as if virtual sketches and the physical objects exist in the same space through seamless coupling between AR and robot motion. This paper contributes a set of novel interactions and a design space of bi-directional AR sketching. We demonstrate a series of potential applications, such as tangible physics education, explorable mechanism, tangible gaming for children, and in-situ robot programming via sketching.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".