Spatial Affordance-aware Interactable Subspace Allocation for Mixed Reality Telepresence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To enable remote Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) clients to collaborate as if they were in the same space during Mixed Reality (MR) telepresence, it is essential to overcome spatial heterogeneity and generate a unified shared collaborative environment by integrating remote spaces into a target host space. Especially when multiple remote users connect, a large shared space is necessary for people to maintain their personal space while collaborating, but the existing simple intersection method leads to the creation of narrow shared spaces as the number of remote spaces increases. To robustly align to the host space even as the number of remote spaces increases, we propose a spatial affordance-aware interactable subspace allocation algorithm. The key concept of our approach is to consider the perceivable and interactable areas separately, where every user views the same mutual space, but each remote user has a different interactable subspace, considering their location and spatial affordance. We conducted an evaluation with 900 space combinations, varying the number of remote spaces as two, four, and six, and results show our method outperformed in securing wide interactable mutual space and instantiating users compared to the other spatial matching methods. Our work enables multiple clients from diverse remote locations to access the AR host’s space, allowing them to interact directly with the table, wall, or floor by aligning their physical subspaces within a connected mutual space.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".