MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413789083 · doi:10.1111/cgf.70202

Uniform Sampling of Surfaces by Casting Rays

2025· article· en· W4413789083 on OpenAlexafffund
Selena Ling, Abhishek Madan, Nicholas Sharp, Alec Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanada Research ChairsAdobe Systems
KeywordsComputer graphics (images)Computer scienceSampling (signal processing)Ray castingCastingEngineering drawingRendering (computer graphics)Computer visionMaterials scienceMetallurgyVolume renderingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Randomly sampling points on surfaces is an essential operation in geometry processing. This sampling is computationally straightforward on explicit meshes, but it is much more difficult on other shape representations, such as widely‐used implicit surfaces. This work studies a simple and general scheme for sampling points on a surface, which is derived from a connection to the intersections of random rays with the surface. Concretely, given a subroutine to cast a ray against a surface and find all intersections, we can use that subroutine to uniformly sample white noise points on the surface. This approach is particularly effective in the context of implicit signed distance functions, where sphere marching allows us to efficiently cast rays and sample points, without needing to extract an intermediate mesh. We analyze the basic method to show that it guarantees uniformity, and find experimentally that it is significantly more efficient than alternative strategies on a variety of representations. Furthermore, we show extensions to blue noise sampling and stratified sampling, and applications to deform neural implicit surfaces as well as moment estimation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Graphics ForumSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207