Goal-oriented 3D pattern adjustment with machine learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fit and sizing of clothing are fundamental problems in the field of garment design, manufacture, and retail. Here we propose new computational methods for adjusting the fit of clothing on realistic models of the human body by interactively modifying desired fit attributes . Clothing fit represents the relationship between the body and the garment, and can be quantified using physical fit attributes such as ease and pressure on the body. However, the relationship between pattern geometry and such fit attributes is notoriously complex and nonlinear, requiring deep pattern making expertise to adjust patterns to achieve fit goals. Such attributes can be computed by physically based simulations, using soft avatars. Here we propose a method to learn the relationship between the fit attributes and the space of 2D pattern edits. We demonstrate our method via interactive tools that directly edit fit attributes in 3D and instantaneously predict the corresponding pattern adjustments. The approach has been tested with a range of garment types, and validated by comparing with physical prototypes. Our method introduces an alternative way to directly express fit adjustment goals, making pattern adjustment more broadly accessible. As an additional benefit, the proposed approach allows pattern adjustments to be systematized, enabling better communication and audit of decisions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it