Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 8 references

JGS2: Near Second-order Converging Jacobi/Gauss-Seidel for GPU Elastodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a GPU Jacobi/Gauss-Seidel solver can be made to converge at the rate of a full Newton step by correcting a numerical failure mode called overshoot.

desk verdict A genuinely practical GPU relaxation method that tracks Newton iteration counts, but the second-order optimality proof doesn't cover the implemented co-rotated approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06494 v1 pith:YVM6PU3X submitted 2025-06-06 cs.GR

Lei Lan , Zixuan Lu , Chun Yuan , Weiwei Xu , Hao Su , Huamin Wang , Chenfanfu Jiang , Yin Yang This is my paper
classification cs.GR
keywords GPUelastodynamicssecond-orderJacobiovershootperturbationsubspaceCubaturesamplingincrementalpotentialcontactNewtonconvergenceparallelsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the long-standing trade-off between parallelism and convergence in GPU elastodynamics can be largely closed: a Jacobi/Gauss-Seidel iteration can be made to converge at the rate of a full Newton step. The key is diagnosing overshoot, where a local solver over-minimizes its own sub-energy and worsens the global energy, and correcting it with a coupling subspace that predicts how a local update moves the rest of the mesh. The authors derive a second-order optimal local update, make it precomputable through a co-rotated rest-shape formulation and Cubature sampling, and report that iteration counts track Newton's, for example 38 Jacobi iterations versus 34 Newton iterations per time step on a 3.4M-element Armadillo, with each iteration costing about 11 milliseconds in parallel. If true, this gives GPU simulation Newton-class convergence without a global factorization, with reported 50x to 100x better convergence than prior GPU methods.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the coupling subspace $U_i^k=R^k\bar U_i R_i^{k\top}$ (Eq. 14): a precomputed, co-rotated set of basis vectors that maps a local update $\delta x_i$ to a prediction of the deformation of all complementary DOFs, so that the local solve can see the global energy $E_{C_i}$ without traversing it. Its exact form is the Schur-complement basis $-H_{C_i,C_i}^{-1}H_{i,C_i}^{\top}$ derived from the current Hessian; the paper proves that with this exact $\phi_i$ the local solve reproduces the global Newton step. The co-rotated version embeds a per-vertex rotation $R^k$ extracted by polar decomposition, making the expensive part rest-shape-only and precomputable; Cubature sampling then replaces the dense projection of complementary Hessians and gradients with a few weighted element samples, and a full-coordinate Lagrange-multiplier formulation (Eq. 20) lets all sub-problems share one factorization of $\bar H$, cutting precomputation from days to tens of minutes. This machinery is what converts a Jacobi/GS sweep into a near-Newton step.

What would settle it

Run a deformation dominated by stretch rather than rotation, for example a Neo-Hookean bar pulled to twice its rest length with no rotation, and record the per-iteration distance $\|x_i - S_i x^*\|$ or the total iteration count against a global Newton solve. If the co-rotated rest-shape subspace is accurate, iterations should remain close to Newton's; if the stretch breaks the rotation-invariance assumption, the local updates will overshoot again and the iteration count will depart from Newton's rate, falsifying the central convergence claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a local block solver can be made globally second-order optimal. For each sub-problem $i$, the paper defines a perturbation subspace $\phi_i(\delta x_i)=[I;\,-H_{C_i,C_i}^{-1}H_{i,C_i}^{\top}]\delta x_i$ built from the current Hessian, and shows by block elimination that solving the local problem augmented with this subspace yields exactly $\delta x_i = S_i\delta x^*$, the restriction of the global Newton step. Since rebuilding the current-pose subspace each iteration is infeasible, the paper substitutes a precomputed co-rotated rest-shape subspace $U_i^k = R^k \bar U_i R_i^{k\top}$, invoking rotation invariance of the elastic energy, and approximates the reduced Hessian and gradient with Cubature sampling using a handful of elements per sub-problem. The resulting local solve, Eq. (15), damps the overshoot that makes ordinary Jacobi, VBD, XPBD, and projective dynamics stagnate, and the paper reports near-Newton iteration counts across stiff and soft scenes and with IPC contact barriers, with a parallel line search when the IPC barrier makes Newton's quadratic model poor. This is the claim: a precomputable, material-aware coupling subspace recovers second-order convergence at Jacobi-class parallelism.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the precomputed co-rotated rest-shape subspace $U_i^k=R^k\bar U_i R_i^{k\top}$ faithfully represents the exact current-pose coupling subspace, an equivalence the paper justifies only through co-rotational elasticity that is exact for pure local rotation and is not quantified for large stretch or shear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Iteration counts for a Jacobi/GS sweep track full Newton: 38 versus 34 iterations per step on the 3.4M-element Armadillo, and 64 versus 58 after stiffening the material 20x, while each parallel iteration costs about 11 ms instead of a global factorization.
  • Because the subspace is material-aware, the advantage grows with stiffness: stiff letters and stiff puffer balls converge in similar iteration counts to soft ones, where VBD and 2nd SD fail or require tiny time steps.
  • The method plugs into unconstrained-optimization contact models such as IPC, with a parallel per-sub-problem line search when the IPC barrier makes the quadratic Newton model inadequate, remaining orders of magnitude faster than global IPC solvers.
  • Precomputation is practical at scale: the full-coordinate formulation factors $\bar H$ once and reuses it across sub-problems, reducing precomputation from days to tens of minutes, and the method runs real-time at over 100 FPS on a 100K-element dragon.
  • The reported speedups over prior GPU methods range from 32x to over 1000x depending on scene and baseline, with 50x to 100x as a typical convergence improvement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension of this idea is that overshoot correction can serve as a general preconditioning principle for nonlinear parallel solvers beyond elasticity: any block-splitting method that augments local solves with a cheap coupling map should inherit similar convergence gains, so the same construction could be tested on cloth, rods, MPM, and fluid systems as the authors suggest.
  • The paper's success with only four to six Cubature samples per sub-problem hints that the reduced Hessian acts more as a stabilizer than as an exact energy model; a testable corollary is that even cruder subspace approximations, geometry-based or learned, may recover much of the convergence benefit without the full precomputation.
  • The co-rotated subspace is exact only under rotation-dominated deformation; in stretch- or shear-dominated regimes the method may degrade toward ordinary Jacobi, and an adaptive variant that updates the subspace on the fly in high-stretch regions would directly probe where the approximation boundary lies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a GPU parallel solver for elastodynamics that aims to combine the parallelism of Jacobi/Gauss-Seidel relaxation with the convergence rate of full Newton's method. The core idea is to correct local-solver 'overshoot' by equipping each local sub-problem with a perturbation subspace that transmits the local increment to the rest of the mesh, derived from a Schur-complement-like coupling of the current Hessian (Eqs. 8-9). The authors prove that, with the exact current-pose subspace, the local solve reproduces the global Newton increment (Eq. 12), yielding a 'second-order optimal' update. Because rebuilding the exact subspace each step is infeasible, they replace it with a co-rotated, precomputed rest-shape subspace (Eq. 14), approximate the reduced Hessian/gradient by Cubature sampling (Eq. 17), and accelerate precomputation with a full-coordinate factorization (Eq. 20). The method is evaluated on a large set of scenes, with iteration counts close to projected Newton (38 vs. 34 on a 3.4M-element Armadillo), per-iteration GPU costs of roughly 7-15 ms, and reported 30-170x speedups over GPU baselines. The paper also demonstrates integration with IPC contact barriers. Section 9 explicitly acknowledges that quadratic convergence is lost for highly nonlinear terms such as IPC barriers and that line search is then needed.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would make a substantial contribution: it offers a principled explanation of overshoot in block Jacobi/GS solvers, a material-aware local subspace that is precomputable, and an extensive set of large-scale GPU experiments. The strongest parts are the clean algebraic derivation in Section 4.2 and the reproducibility-oriented experimental reporting, including per-scene iteration counts, timing, and speedups. The paper also clearly identifies its limitation for highly nonlinear IPC barriers, which is a useful scoping statement. However, the central convergence claim depends on an unquantified approximation: the implemented subspace is not the exact current-pose Schur complement used in the proof, and no error bound connects the co-rotated rest-shape subspace or the Cubature approximation to the observed near-Newton iteration counts. The significance would be materially strengthened by an analysis or targeted experiments bounding the approximation error and by separating claims for pure elasticity from claims for IPC contact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2-4.3, Eqs. (9) and (14)] The proof of second-order optimality in Eq. (12) uses the exact current-pose subspace U_Ci = -H_CC^{-1} H_iC^T, but the implementation uses the co-rotated rest-shape subspace U_i^k = R^k \bar U_i R_i^{kT} from Eq. (14). Section 4.3 argues only that an energy estimate 'suffices' and that the alternative subspace 'closely matches' the exact one; no theorem or quantitative bound is given for ||U_i^k - U_Ci|| or for the resulting error in the local update. Since the convergence-rate claim is the load-bearing assertion of the paper, the manuscript needs either an error estimate in terms of deformation measures (e.g., strain invariants), or a systematic numerical study measuring the subspace mismatch across stretch/shear regimes and correlating it with iteration counts.
  2. [Sec. 9 and Table 1] The conclusion states that quadratic convergence is lost when the optimization involves highly nonlinear terms such as the IPC barrier, yet several headline scenes (House of cards, Cactus, Animal crossing, Cloth) use IPC, and these scenes are presented under the same 'near second-order' framing. The paper should either restrict the second-order claim to non-contact/penalty scenes and treat IPC scenes as a separate robustness result, or provide an analysis of when the contact barrier preserves the near-Newton rate. Without this separation, the abstract's blanket claim of near-quadratic convergence overstates what Section 9 concedes.
  3. [Sec. 5, Eq. (17)-(18)] The Cubature weights and sample sets are fitted parameters, and the reduced Hessian/gradient are central to the 'damper' mechanism that prevents overshoot. The paper states that training poses are low-frequency eigenvectors and that |S_i| is only 4 or 6, but it does not report sensitivity of iteration counts or convergence to these choices (e.g., varying |S_i|, training-pose count, or residual threshold). Given that the central performance claim depends on the accuracy of this approximation, adding a sensitivity study or, ideally, a bound relating the Cubature residual to the local-update error would substantially strengthen the manuscript.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption reads 'our method is 12,00× faster than co-dimensional IPC'; this appears to be a typo for '12,000×'.
  2. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption says 'there are 4.8elements' and is missing 'million'; it should read '4.8M elements'.
  3. [Table 1, Teaser row] The Teaser row reports '∞×' in the speedup column, while the text in Section 1 states 122× for the soft-ball comparison; the table entry should be made consistent with the text.
  4. [Sec. 8.3 and Fig. 4] The text reports our per-iteration cost as 11 ms for the Armadillo and the Fig. 4 scene as 15 ms; the difference is plausible but should be reconciled or explained, for example by scene size or collision handling.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The phrase '50× to 100× better convergence' is used in the abstract while the experiments report a wide speedup range in Table 1 (32× to 173×); the authors may want to phrase the headline claim as a range that matches their reported data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core optimality is an algebraic identity against full Newton, and the co-rotated subspace gap is an approximation risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. In Sections 4.1 and 4.2, the paper proves an algebraic identity: if the local perturbation subspace is the exact Schur complement U_Ci = -H_CC^{-1} H_iC^T, then substituting phi_i = [I; U_Ci] into the local Newton solve (Eq. 6) yields exactly the projection of the global Newton step S_i δx* (Eqs. 10-12). This is a mathematical equivalence against an external benchmark, fullspace Newton's method, and the local solve remains an N_i-dimensional per-vertex problem, so the identity is a nontrivial construction rather than a definitional renaming or a fitted prediction. The implemented co-rotated subspace (Eq. 14) and Cubature sampling (Eq. 17) are acknowledged approximations: Section 4.3 argues only that an energy estimate suffices, and Section 9 explicitly concedes that quadratic convergence is lost when highly nonlinear IPC barriers dominate. That gap is an unquantified approximation and correctness risk, not circularity, because no convergence claim is derived from the fitted Cubature weights; iteration counts and speedups are measured against independent methods (VBD, GPU-IPC, projected Newton). Self-citations to 2nd SD, A-Jacobi, and related GPU methods appear only as baselines or related work, not as load-bearing justification for the central identity. Consequently, no circular step can be quoted from the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on three classes of support: a standard algebra identity (Schur complement), a domain assumption (co-rotational elasticity makes the rest-shape Hessian usable), and fitted or trained components (Cubature weights, sample counts, training poses) whose quality is verified only empirically. The contact approximation in Section 7 is an additional ad hoc coupling assumption. The per-scene convergence tolerances in Table 1 are evaluation choices that affect the reported speedups.

free parameters (4)
  • Cubature weights w_e = Per-mesh NNLS solution of Eq. (18); 4 to 6 weights per vertex sub-problem
    Eq. (17) weights the sampled reduced Hessian and gradient with w_e; the runtime damping behavior depends on these fitted weights.
  • Cubature sample count |S_i| = 4 or 6 per sub-problem (Table 1)
    Chosen by hand per scene with a reported residual below 1% (Section 5); more samples improve accuracy at higher cost.
  • Cubature training pose set = Low-frequency eigenvectors of the rest-shape Hessian; truncation count unspecified
    Section 5 states training poses are low-frequency eigenvectors of H-bar, but the number of poses used is not given, so the trained model quality is not fully reproducible.
  • Per-scene convergence tolerance = ||Δx|| < 1E-3, 5E-4, or 3E-4 (Table 1)
    Different stopping thresholds across scenes directly affect reported iteration counts and speedup ratios; a position-change criterion is loose for stiff systems.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Block elimination of the global Newton system yields the restricted step δx*_i = (H_ii + H_iC U_C)^{-1} (H_iC H_CC^{-1} g_C - g_i), with U_C = -H_CC^{-1} H_iC^T.
    Section 4.2, Eqs. (10)-(12); this is classical static condensation, valid for the idealized exact-Hessian subspace.
  • domain assumption Co-rotational elasticity: rotating vertices back to rest orientation preserves elastic energy, so the rest-shape Hessian with per-vertex rotations can replace the current-pose Hessian in the subspace construction.
    Section 4.3, Eq. (14); exact only for pure rotation; error under large stretch or shear is unquantified.
  • domain assumption The damped local system (H_ii + U^T ∇²E_C U) δx_i = -(g_i + U^T g_C) is the right local model, with the positive reduced Hessian acting as a damper that prevents overshoot.
    Section 4.4 and Eq. (15); asserted as a design principle, not proven; this is where the implemented system diverges from the Schur-complement optimality proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Newton's quadratic model of Eq. (2) is accurate at every iteration, i.e., the remainder O(||δx^k||^3) is small.
    Section 3 and Section 9; the conclusion explicitly concedes this fails for highly nonlinear IPC barrier terms.
  • ad hoc to paper For contacts, all colliding vertices on the opposing body perturb identically to the contact vertex.
    Section 7; assumes the contact potential is much stiffer than elasticity; no validation or sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Local 3x3 solve systems remain well-conditioned.
    Section 8.1 asserts this without supporting analysis; the local Hessian combines H_ii with a Cubature-sampled positive term.
invented entities (3)
  • Local perturbation subspace φ_i (Eq. 9) independent evidence
    purpose: Maps a local vertex update to a prediction of complementary DOF response so the local solve can see global energy variation.
    Mathematical construction; its exact form is the Schur-complement coupling, checkable by solving Eq. (8) and comparing with the restricted Newton step.
  • Co-rotated precomputed subspace U^k_i = R^k Ū_i R^{kT}_i (Eq. 14) independent evidence
    purpose: Runtime-cheap approximation of φ_i built from the rest-shape Hessian and per-vertex rotations.
    Its accuracy is testable against the exact current-pose subspace; the paper provides no error bound.
  • Cubature sample set S_i with weights w_e (Eq. 17) independent evidence
    purpose: Sparse sampling of the reduced Hessian and gradient of the complement energy.
    Falsifiable via training residual; standard reduced-modeling technique from An et al. 2008.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JGS2: Near Second-order Converging Jacobi/Gauss-Seidel for GPU Elastodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVM6PU3X

@misc{pith2026250606494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JGS2: Near Second-order Converging Jacobi/Gauss-Seidel for GPU Elastodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVM6PU3X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06494}
}
read the original abstract

In parallel simulation, convergence and parallelism are often seen as inherently conflicting objectives. Improved parallelism typically entails lighter local computation and weaker coupling, which unavoidably slow the global convergence. This paper presents a novel GPU algorithm that achieves convergence rates comparable to fullspace Newton's method while maintaining good parallelizability just like the Jacobi method. Our approach is built on a key insight into the phenomenon of overshoot. Overshoot occurs when a local solver aggressively minimizes its local energy without accounting for the global context, resulting in a local update that undermines global convergence. To address this, we derive a theoretically second-order optimal solution to mitigate overshoot. Furthermore, we adapt this solution into a pre-computable form. Leveraging Cubature sampling, our runtime cost is only marginally higher than the Jacobi method, yet our algorithm converges nearly quadratically as Newton's method. We also introduce a novel full-coordinate formulation for more efficient pre-computation. Our method integrates seamlessly with the incremental potential contact method and achieves second-order convergence for both stiff and soft materials. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach delivers high-quality simulations and outperforms state-of-the-art GPU methods with 50 to 100 times better convergence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Soft and stiff puffer balls. This paper presents a novel GPU-based parallel algorithm for elastic body simulation. We are inspired by a numerical issue of overshoot, which is the major reason behind the slow convergence of parallel solvers. Overshoot refers to the situation where local relaxation becomes over-aggressive — the reduction of local energy gets outweighed by the energy increase at other regions on the de… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overshoot of local solvers. We plot the relative error between 𝒙𝑖 and 𝑺𝑖𝒙 ∗ such that 𝒙𝑖 is the position of a tetrahedron element obtained by different local solvers, including XPBD [Macklin et al. 2016], PD [Bouaziz et al. 2014], VBD [Chen et al. 2024c], 2nd SD [Lan et al. 2023], and our method. Our method converges as fast as New￾ton’s method does, and the error reaches 1𝐸 − 3 with just three iterations. The other… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison with VBD & 2nd SD. The Armadillo model consists of 1M vertices and 3.4M elements. We fix its left hand and drag the right leg downwards to produce a large-scale body defor￾mation. We record the total num￾ber of iterations needed for this example using VBD [Chen et al. 2024c], 2nd SD [Lan et al. 2022], and our method under different material stiffness with ℎ = 1/100. Our method is 15× faster than 2nd SD an… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stiff and soft letters. Five sets of “SIGGRAPH” letters fall on the floor. The letters on the top row are 1, 000 times more stiffer than the ones in the bottom row. Our method is not sensitive to the variation of material stiffness. For each time step, it needs 34 iter…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: House of cards. A stack of 155 cards is initially balanced through frictional contacts using IPC barriers [Li et al. 2020a]. The house of cards collapses under a high-velocity impact from two boxes. Each card has 2, 543 elements. The greed cards are 200 times more stif…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Real-time simulation. Our method enables real-time simulation of complex deformable bodies. The dragon has 100K elements, and it can be simulated in real time under user manipulations. With ℎ = 1/100, our method takes fewer than 10 iterations to simulate one frame. The…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Barbarian ships. Five barbarian ships fall and interact with multiple thin rods between two walls. There are more than 2.5M elements in this example. Our method uses 333 ms to simulate one time step using penalty forces. Our simulation is 153× faster than VBD [PITH_FU…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Jack-o′ -lanterns. 850 Halloween jack-o′ -lanterns fall into a container with a deformable tree, and they fully bury the tree eventually. There are 6.7M elements in this example in total. Our method takes 753 ms for each time frame, which is 40× faster than VBD. 8.7 Re…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Squeeze puffer ball. In this simulation, we drop a puffer ball into a soft elastic chain. The puffer ball, comprising 1.2M elements, interacts with an elastic net made up of 588 rings and 329K elements, connected via ring-ring contacts. As the ball descends, the net t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Bone dragons from the sky. Six bone dragons fall into the cactus bush. There are 1.2M elements in the simulation, and we use IPC to robustly process high-velocity collisions between bone dragons and cacti, as well as self-collisions among cacti. In this example, our m…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Animal crossing. 500 small animal toys fall into the tank, and there are 4.8 elements in this example. A glass plane is then pushed down to compress all these little toys. After the removal of the plane, the compressed animals bounce back into the air. Animals have di…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cover the helicopter. Our method is not limited to deformable simulation and can also be readily used for thin-shell and cloth simulation. In this example, a piece of tablecloth covers a helicopter. It is displaced back and forth, generating detailed wrinkles. There a…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics38, 4 (2019)

    Decomposed Optimization Time Integrator for Large-Step Elastodynamics. ACM Transactions on Graphics38, 4 (2019). Minchen Li, Danny M Kaufman, and Chenfanfu Jiang. 2020b. Codimensional incremen- tal potential contact.arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.04457(2020). Xuan Li, Yu Fang, Lei Lan, Huamin Wang, Yin Yang, Minchen Li, and Chenfanfu Jiang

    arXiv 2019

  2. [7]

    Alex Pentland and John Williams

    Schur complement-based substructuring of stiff multibody systems with contact.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)38, 5 (2019), 1–17. Alex Pentland and John Williams. 1989. Good vibrations: Modal dynamics for graphics and animation. InSIGGRAPH Comput. Graph., Vol. 23. ACM. Siyuan Shen, Yin Yang, Tianjia Shao, He Wang, Chenfanfu Jiang, Lei Lan, and Kun Zhou....

    work page 2019

  3. [2010]

    InACM Trans

    Unified simulation of elastic rods, shells, and solids. InACM Trans. Graph. (TOG), Vol. 29. ACM, 39. Élie Michel and Jean-Marc Thiery. 2023. Polynomial 2D Green coordinates for polygonal cages. InACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings. 1–9. Matthias Müller, Julie Dorsey, Leonard McMillan, Robert Jagnow, and Barbara Cut- ler. 2002. Stable real-time defor...

    work page 2007

  4. [2013]

    Huamin Wang

    An efficient construction of reduced deformable objects.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)32, 6 (2013), 1–10. Huamin Wang. 2015. A chebyshev semi-iterative approach for accelerating projective and position-based dynamics.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)34, 6 (2015), 1–9. Huamin Wang and Yin Yang. 2016. Descent methods for elastic body simulation on the ...

    work page 2013

  5. [2019]

    InComputer graphics forum, Vol

    Latent-space Dynamics for Reduced Deformable Simulation. InComputer graphics forum, Vol. 38. Wiley Online Library, 379–391. Benjamin Gilles, Guillaume Bousquet, Francois Faure, and Dinesh K Pai. 2011. Frame- based elastic models.ACM Trans. Graph. (TOG)30, 2 (2011), 15. Anne Greenbaum. 1997.Iterative methods for solving linear systems. SIAM. Eitan Grinspun...

    work page 2011

  6. [2021]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)40, 4 (2021), 1–16

    Medial IPC: accelerated incremental potential contact with medial elastics. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)40, 4 (2021), 1–16. Minchen Li, Zachary Ferguson, Teseo Schneider, Timothy R Langlois, Denis Zorin, Daniele Panozzo, Chenfanfu Jiang, and Danny M Kaufman. 2020a. Incremental po- tential contact: intersection-and inversion-free, large-deformation d...

    work page 2021

  7. [2022]

    Lei Lan, Yin Yang, Danny Kaufman, Junfeng Yao, Minchen Li, and Chenfanfu Jiang

    Penetration-free projective dynamics on the GPU.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)41, 4 (2022), 1–16. Lei Lan, Yin Yang, Danny Kaufman, Junfeng Yao, Minchen Li, and Chenfanfu Jiang

    work page 2022

  8. [2023]

    InSIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers

    Subspace-preconditioned gpu projective dynamics with contact for cloth simulation. InSIGGRAPH Asia 2023 Conference Papers. 1–12. Yaron Lipman, David Levin, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2008. Green coordinates.ACM transactions on graphics (TOG)27, 3 (2008), 1–10. Yaron Lipman, Raif M Rustamov, and Thomas A Funkhouser. 2010. Biharmonic distance. ACM Transactions on...

    work page 2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.