MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7147337106 · doi:10.1145/3769872.3769904

Controllable Modular Trees

2025· article· W7147337106 on OpenAlexaff
S. Takikawa, Riccardo Tinchelli, Mike Davison, Curtis Andrus, James John Drown, Alla Sheffer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designTree (set theory)Key (lock)Weight-balanced treeSet (abstract data type)ComputationFocus (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trees are a ubiquitous part of virtual environments, but faithfully modeling trees is challenging because of their incredible diversity. Tree modeling methods face two key challenges, as users want to create trees that look realistic but retain control over key elements of their appearance, such as the shape of the tree crowns. Traditional tree modeling methods are geared to produce tree models that are both detailed and unique and are typically stored as high-triangle count meshes or skeletons plus radii. Storing and manipulating such traditional tree models comes with a significant memory cost. Recent approaches have proposed to use modular trees consisting of a finite set of branch modules, which are transformed (scaled, translated, and rotated) to jointly form realistic looking trees. Consequently, modular trees require orders of magnitude less memory than their traditional counterparts. However, existing methods for modeling modular trees focus on visual realism and provide only minimal mechanisms for artists to control the look and shape of the resulting trees. We propose a controllable method for modeling modular trees, enabling artists to define the tree’s overall crown shape while maintaining a plausible appearance using a small set of replicated branch modules. We formulate the computation of realistic modular trees that conform to a user-specified crown shape as a constrained mixed-variable optimization problem. We then compute the trees that satisfy these constraints using a method that grows trees one layer of branches at a time, maintaining realism throughout and promoting accurate approximation of the target crown shape. We extensively test our method on diverse crown shapes and compare against baselines, demonstrating its effectiveness.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207