EG 2005 Review Statements

Quantitative review results

See following table

Important statements

• Not very original
• Simple bitmasking approach
• Concerns on how the cutting with shapes is described and performed
• Explain how multiple intersections of a cutting shape with edges of a tet are managed
• The authors says that if there are several intersection points on the same tetrahedron edge the subdivision process is repeated iteratively, but it is not clear what exactly this approach means. For example if we have a double surface crossing a single tetrahedron, we if we consider the first surface alone the subdivision generate a set of new tetrahedra that should tested against the second surface again, (and there fore adding new entries to the hash table. But this is not said in the paper where the phases of intersection point creation and effective subdivision seem distinct.
• No innovations in the search for boundaries (i.e. some kind of sparse, perhaps output sensitive traversal)
• Explain the potential simplices in more detail
• More likely a Visualization or medical journal
• Gregory M. Nielson, Richard Franke: Computing the separating surface for segmented data. IEEE Visualization 1997: 229-233
• Kathleen Bonnell, Daniel Schikore, Kenneth Joy, Mark Duchaineau, Bernd Hamann, Constructing Material Interfaces from Data Sets with Volume-Fraction Information, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Visualization 2000, pp. 367-372, 2000
• Make a more rigorous definition of consistent
• Where is the "new datastructure ?
• The mesh generation is not clear, explain how the labeled are generated --> make a reference to the WSCG paper, or explain a tetrahedra decomposition algorithm
• Explain why the hierarchy is needed, is appears to be unnecessary
• Sec 4.1 second formula: you have overloaded the XOR operator in an interesting way (distributing it over several left-hand-side entries). You should explain this notation, or use only the notation you have defined.
• the Wedges: you don't say when you use a wedge versus a conventional vertex representation. What exactly is the deciding factor if there is a choice, or if not, what is the overhead for the duplications?
• Split Figure 6
• Skip pseudocode for hashing
• Outline the benefits of the cutting methods in comparison to the related work
• Section 3 is too formal
• Section 3: 3 property is superfuous
• Section 3.1: "An entity is a homogenuous region in the mesh represented by an entity bit vector", Definition is wrong; the entity bit vector describes which regions a tet belongs to; later, the correct definition of an entity being defined by a single bit in the bit vector is given.
• Either stick to region or entity
• 3.1 make definition of entities and region more clear
• use edge, triangle, and tetrahedron after n-simplex definition
• Section 4.2: It is not clear what data is associated with each vertex, how the wedges work, and if they are associated with every tet face or only those that are part of a potential surface. Also, the authors talk about treating sharp edges specially, but the images in figure 4 show smooth shading across edges that should obviously be sharp.
• Paragraph right before section 5.2: This should have been very prominently featured in the introduction! It took me to read until here before I understood what the authors meant by cutting.
• Explain when the list of potential tetras is built
• Explain the section 4.1. more clearly, and clean up errors (see figure !!!)
• Mention that the GTL is an extension to the MC algorithm for handling more than one iso-surface