MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411656687 · doi:10.55677/csrb/02-v02i04y2025

A Review on the Impact of AI in Computer Graphics Considering IoTs

2025· review· en· W4411656687 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ikechukwu Innocent Umeh

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Science Research Bulletin · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)Computer graphicsGraphics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into computer graphics, combined with the Internet of Things (IoT), reshapes the landscape of visual content creation, processing, and application across diverse industries. AI-driven advancements in generative models, real-time rendering, and automated design tools enhance creativity, scalability, and efficiency. Simultaneously, IoT broadens the scope of computer graphics by delivering real-time, context-aware data from connected devices, enabling dynamic and interactive visualizations. This study investigates the profound impact of AI and IoT convergence on computer graphics. Emerging technologies, including augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), demonstrate the synergistic potential of AI and IoT in creating immersive, realtime environments for training simulations, urban planning, and interactive entertainment. Furthermore, IoT-enabled devices, such as smart home systems and wearables, leverage AI-enhanced graphics tools to deliver high-fidelity, adaptive visual interfaces. The findings suggest that integrating AI and IoT in computer graphics offers transformative possibilities for creating adaptive, interactive, and intelligent visual systems. However, addressing ethical concerns and promoting sustainable practices remain essential to ensuring equitable access and responsible utilization. The study addresses key challenges, including computational demands, data privacy, and ethical considerations, proposing solutions such as cloud-based resources, decentralized data systems, and AI-driven bias detection mechanisms. Finally, this paper emphasized the need for interdisciplinary collaboration among technologists, designers, and policymakers to unlock the full potential of AI and computer graphics integration with IoT while mitigating associated challenges.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Science Research BulletinSame topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207