MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406266251 · doi:10.1109/ismar62088.2024.00142

Spatial Affordance-aware Interactable Subspace Allocation for Mixed Reality Telepresence

2024· article· en· W4406266251 on OpenAlexaff
Dooyoung Kim, Seonji Kim, Selin Choi, Woontack Woo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersTechnology DevelopmentNational Research Council
KeywordsAffordanceComputer scienceSubspace topologyHuman–computer interactionVirtual realityAugmented realityComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207