MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401249246 · doi:10.1364/josaa.530840

Data-driven correction for the masking model of Smith

2024· article· en· W4401249246 on OpenAlexafffund
Elsa Tamisier, Mickaël Ribardière, Daniel Méneveaux, Sébastien Horna, Pierre Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Optical Society of America A · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMasking (illustration)Computer scienceArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To render realistic material appearances, physically based models often rely on the microfacet theory. These models require several parameters that drive the distribution of microfacet orientations, their reflectance, and a geometric attenuation factor. The latter accounts for self-masking and self-shadowing; it must be managed carefully when physical plausibility is required. The masking term proposed by Smith [IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.15, 668 (1967)IETPAK0018-926X10.1109/TAP.1967.1138991] is widely used for its accuracy when employed with theoretical distributions. However, it does not ensure exactness when compared with the masking of measured microsurfaces. We have conducted an in-depth study of the error associated with isotropic roughnesses, based on a ray-casting measurement with mesh-based surfaces. This article proposes a correction function that can be added to the theoretical masking term at a very low computation cost while bringing the masking closer to the ground truth. Our correction term is built from a linear combination of two Johnson SB distributions, parameterized according to statistical features of the microsurface. We show that the resulting masking term always reduces the error when compared to the original Smith term alone. This improvement is illustrated in the whole bidirectional reflectance functions with rendered images.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Optical Society of America ASame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207