Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Toward Precise Curve Offsetting Constrained to Parametric Surfaces

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper tries to establish that curve offsetting on parametric surfaces can be reframed as a Voronoi-cell-local operation, eliminating global self-intersection trimming.

desk verdict The pipeline is promising and the experiments look encouraging, but Theorem 2 is false as stated and the 'no self-intersection handling' claim needs a serious rewrite. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09333 v1 pith:NZ5XNAYE submitted 2025-09-11 cs.CG

Jin Zhao , Pengfei Wang , Shuangmin Chen , Jiong Guo , Shiqing Xin , Changhe Tu , Wenping Wang This is my paper
classification cs.CG MSC 68U0565D17
keywords offsetcurvesparametricsurfacesgeodesicdistanceintrinsictriangulationVoronoidiagramedgeflippingself-intersectionCAD/CAM
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

Curve offsetting on a curved surface normally requires expensive geodesic queries followed by a fragile pass to trim self-intersections. This paper proposes instead to cut the source curve into short segments, compute the geodesic Voronoi diagram of those segments in the parameter domain, and extract each segment's offset only inside its own Voronoi cell. Because the offset of a primitive provably stays inside its Voronoi cell, the final offset curve can be assembled from independent local pieces, and self-intersections are handled implicitly rather than trimmed explicitly. If the method works as reported, offsetting on parametric surfaces becomes faster, more accurate, and parallelizable, which matters for CAD/CAM toolpath generation, surface coverage, and morphological operations. The price is that all accuracy rests on approximate geodesic distances from an intrinsic triangulation that is not strictly unfoldable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the surface-constrained Voronoi decomposition of a discretized source curve in the parameter domain, equipped with the induced metric where distance between parameter points is geodesic distance on the surface. The paper proves that the offset of any primitive lies entirely within its Voronoi cell, which licenses independent per-cell offset extraction. The supporting machinery is an intrinsic triangulation of the parameter space whose edge lengths are geodesic distances, combined with an edge-flipping procedure for computing distances and a plane-cutting step that produces each local offset segment by slicing a prism built over an unfolded triangle.

What would settle it

On a sphere, where exact geodesic distances and offsets are known analytically, discretize a curve into N segments with an intrinsic triangulation of T triangles and compute its offset at distance d. If the Hausdorff error relative to the true spherical offset does not shrink as N and T increase, or if it plateaus above the remeshing baseline, the precision claims fail. In addition, force a deliberately suboptimal Dijkstra initialization path as in the paper's failure experiment: if the resulting offset visibly collapses toward the source curve or the distance-field gradient exceeds 1 along so

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that offsetting a curve on a parametric surface can be decomposed into independent per-segment offsets inside the Voronoi cells of the curve's discretized primitives, computed in the parameter domain under the surface's induced metric, so the final offset curve is assembled without a dedicated self-intersection pass. It further claims that the parameter-space intrinsic triangulation with edge flipping yields geodesic distances accurate enough to support this approach, reporting roughly twice the accuracy of a remeshing-based geodesic method on a sphere at equal face counts, and that the extracted offsets capture cusps that mesh-based offsets miss. The method therefore replac

Load-bearing premise

The method's accuracy rests on treating intrinsic triangles in the parameter space as if they can be unfolded flat for edge-flipping geodesic computation, which the paper itself concedes is not strictly guaranteed and therefore introduces approximation error into the Voronoi cells, distance field, and final offsets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Offset curves can be extracted in parallel per Voronoi cell, so the expensive global self-intersection trimming step is no longer needed.
  • Accuracy is controlled mainly by how finely the source curve is discretized, with visually satisfactory results reported at about 200 segments.
  • Computation time scales linearly with the number of curve segments and grows only gradually with offset distance.
  • On a sphere, the intrinsic-triangulation geodesic computation showed roughly half the deviation of a remeshing-based approach at the same triangulation density.
  • Morphological operations such as opening and closing on surface curves follow directly by composing inward and outward offsets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The Voronoi-confinement theorem is metric-agnostic, so the same per-cell extraction strategy could be adapted to anisotropic or non-Euclidean distance fields on surfaces by replacing plane cutting with a generic distance-field contouring step inside each cell.
  • The paper's gradient-norm error check (distance differences along triangle edges should not exceed edge lengths) could be turned into an online verification routine for production offsetting, flagging triangles where the geodesic computation has failed.
  • Approximate Voronoi boundaries may produce small gaps or overlaps where per-cell offsets meet, so a boundary-stitching step would likely be needed when extending the method to closed curves or very large offset distances.
  • A testable conjecture consistent with the paper's experiments is that the accuracy advantage over extrinsic mesh-based offsets grows with surface curvature, since intrinsic edge lengths preserve metric information that extrinsic triangulation loses.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a pipeline for computing geodesic offsets of curves on parametric surfaces. The source curve is discretized into small segments represented by points; an intrinsic triangulation of the parameter domain is built with edge lengths set to approximate geodesic distances on the surface; a Voronoi diagram of the representative points is computed under the induced metric using a modified SurfaceVoronoi algorithm; and offset curves are extracted per Voronoi cell via a linear interpolation of the distance field and plane-cutting operations. The authors claim that this Voronoi-guided decomposition confines each primitive's offset contribution to its Voronoi cell, enabling localized, parallel extraction and avoiding specialized self-intersection handling. Experiments compare against the mesh-based method of Xin et al. [38] on several surfaces, with quantitative results on sphere and cylinder, plus ablation studies on curve discretization, triangulation density, and geodesic accuracy. The paper closes with limitations, including the fact that the intrinsic triangulation is not necessarily unfoldable and that geodesic paths depend on initialization.

Significance. If correct, the Voronoi-guided localization strategy could offer a genuinely different and more efficient way to compute curve offsets on parametric surfaces, avoiding repeated global geodesic queries and post-hoc self-intersection trimming. The idea of working in the parameter space with an induced metric and an intrinsic triangulation is appealing and aligns with current trends in intrinsic geometry processing. The paper also contains a useful failure-case analysis and is transparent about the approximation introduced by unfolding intrinsic triangles. However, the central theoretical guarantee is currently unsupported: Theorem 2 as stated and proved is false under the standard definition of an offset level set, and the algorithm's implementation does not explicitly clip per-cell pieces to the boundary of a union of geodesic disks. In addition, the accuracy claims rest on an unproven flatness assumption and on a point-sampling approximation to the source curve. The experimental evidence is limited to two simple surfaces for quantitative comparison. The contribution is therefore promising but needs a substantial revision of the theoretical framing and a clearer statement of what is

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Theorem 2] The theorem as stated is false for the usual definition of an offset curve. In the Euclidean plane, take P1=(0,0), P2=(10,0), d=5.5. The point x=(5.5,0) lies in the Voronoi cell of P2 but also satisfies d(P1,x)=d, so it belongs to the raw d-offset of P1. The proof says this 'contradicts the definition of the offset,' but no definition of an offset curve excludes points that are closer to another primitive. If 'global offset structure' is intended to mean the boundary of the union of the d-neighborhoods ∪ D(P_i,d), then the statement is true but the proof must start from that definition: a boundary point at distance d from P_i cannot lie in the interior of D(P_j,d). Section 4.3 must then explicitly clip the per-cell pieces to that union boundary. As written, the localization guarantee and the 'no specialized self-intersection handling' claim are not supported. This is load-bearing because
  2. [§3.1, §4.3, §6] The geodesic computation assumes that an intrinsic triangle whose edge lengths are geodesic distances can be developed onto a Euclidean plane with those side lengths for the purpose of edge flipping. The paper concedes in Section 6 that 'strictly speaking, the intrinsic triangulation is not necessarily unfoldable.' The triangle inequality is only necessary, not sufficient, for the interior of a geodesic triangle to be isometric to a Euclidean triangle with the same side lengths; angle sum / curvature information is lost. Since the Voronoi cells, distance field, and final offsets all inherit this approximation, the accuracy claims are global to the pipeline. Table 3 validates only on a sphere, and only against a remeshing baseline rather than an absolute error bound. I request an error estimate in terms of local curvature and triangulation size, or an explicit and prominent statement that
  3. [§4, §5.4.1] The implementation represents each source-curve segment by a single representative point and then computes distances to that point within each Voronoi cell. The abstract says 'line-segment primitives,' but the algorithm as described uses point sites. The output is effectively the boundary of a union of geodesic balls centered at the sample points, not the true geodesic offset of the continuous curve. No convergence theorem or error estimate is given for this discretization in terms of segment length and offset distance. The ablation in Figure 13 shows visible polygonization at 50 samples and 'visually satisfactory' behavior at 200 samples, but there is no quantitative convergence curve. Since this approximation is central to the accuracy claim, please provide a convergence analysis or explicitly state that the method computes an approximation to the d-level set of the sampled curve.
  4. [§5.2, Table 1] The quantitative evaluation is too narrow to support the broad claim of 'superior accuracy compared to existing methods.' Only sphere and cylinder are measured, with one-directional Hausdorff and Chamfer distances and no error bars or repetitions. The cylinder is developable and the sphere is highly symmetric; neither surface exercises the non-unfoldability issue on regions with sign-changing Gaussian curvature. Moreover, on sphere and cylinder exact offset curves can be constructed analytically, so a comparison against an analytic ground truth would be more informative than a comparison against another approximate mesh method. Please report errors against exact geodesic offsets, include variability over multiple test curves, and test at least one surface with variable curvature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2] The heading 'Releated Work' is misspelled. References [6] and [23] appear to be the same Patrikalakis--Bardis paper; please merge or disambiguate.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (1)] The first fundamental form notation is sloppy: E,F,G are functions of the parameter point, and the arc-length integrand should be sqrt(E(u')^2 + 2F u'v' + G(v')^2) dt, not E(u2-u1)^2 + ... . Please clarify the notation.
  3. [§3.2] The terms 'global offset structure' and 'd-offset curve' are never formally defined. Please define them before Theorem 2 so the theorem can be checked.
  4. [Abstract vs. §4] The abstract says the source curve is represented as 'line-segment primitives,' while Section 4 says each segment is 'represented by a single representative point.' Please align the terminology and state clearly what the Voronoi sites are.
  5. [§5.2, Figures 8 and 10] The visual comparisons lack a precise specification of offset distance, offset side (positive/negative), and how cusps are evaluated. Please add this information or a reference to the experimental protocol.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; minor self-citation of SurfaceVoronoi and an invalid Theorem 2 proof are correctness concerns, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Geodesic distances are computed by an extension of the independently published edge-flipping algorithm of Sharp and Crane [16] and are validated against analytical geodesics on a sphere (Table 3), an external benchmark; offset accuracy is compared against the different mesh-based method of Xin et al. [38] (Tables 1–2), not against quantities fitted in this paper. The main self-citation is the SurfaceVoronoi algorithm [43] used for the parameter-space Voronoi diagram; this is a published, separately implemented component and is not used to define or prove the offset-extraction result, so it is a minor non-load-bearing self-citation. Section 3.2's Theorem 2 contains a genuine proof gap: the claimed contradiction with 'the definition of the offset' does not follow for a raw offset curve (a point can be at distance d from P_i yet strictly closer to P_j), so the localized no-self-intersection guarantee is not established as written. This is a formal correctness/rigor issue, not a circular reduction, because the global-offset confinement property has independent geometric content and the algorithm's quantitative claims rest on external benchmarks. Section 6's explicit admission that the intrinsic triangulation is 'not necessarily unfoldable' is likewise an accuracy limitation, not a circular dependency. Under the proportionality rule, this warrants a low score of 2, not a higher circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two load-bearing assumptions that are not fully justified: the approximate unfoldability of intrinsic triangles for geodesic computation, and the equivalence of point-site offsets to segment offsets after discretization. Both are acknowledged or unproven in the text. The free parameters are discretization resolutions, not fitted constants. No new physical or geometric entities are invented.

free parameters (2)
  • Curve segment count = 2,000 (default in experiments)
    The source curve is discretized into segments represented by points. Offset accuracy and runtime depend on this resolution, and the paper shows convergence with increasing count but provides no formal error bound relating segment count to offset error.
  • Parameter-space triangulation density = ~50,000 triangles (default in experiments)
    The uniform initial triangulation of the parameter domain influences geodesic accuracy (Table 3), though the authors claim the final offset depends minimally on it after Voronoi embedding. Still, it is a tunable resolution parameter affecting the results.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The induced metric on the parameter space, defined by geodesic distances on the surface, is a metric and satisfies the triangle inequality.
    Theorem 1 proves the triangle inequality for the induced metric, but this is a standard property of shortest-path metrics and is used without further justification.
  • domain assumption The parametric surface is regular and its first fundamental form (E, F, G) is known and integrable over parameter space.
    Equation (1) computes initial edge lengths as arc lengths of the surface map, requiring a computable first fundamental form. This is stated in Section 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper An intrinsic triangle with edges equal to geodesic distances can be unfolded to a Euclidean plane for the purpose of edge-flipping geodesic computation.
    The paper uses Sharp and Crane's intrinsic edge-flipping algorithm, which assumes developable triangles. The authors concede in Section 6 that the intrinsic triangulation is not necessarily unfoldable, so this is an acknowledged approximation that is load-bearing for the geodesic distance computation.
  • ad hoc to paper Representing each curve segment by a single representative point yields an offset approximation that converges to the true curve offset as segment length shrinks.
    The algorithm computes the Voronoi diagram of representative points, not of the original curve segments. Theorem 2 is stated for disjoint primitives, but adjacent curve segments share endpoints; no convergence proof is supplied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward Precise Curve Offsetting Constrained to Parametric Surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZ5XNAYE

@misc{pith2026250909333,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward Precise Curve Offsetting Constrained to Parametric Surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZ5XNAYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09333}
}
read the original abstract

Computing offsets of curves on parametric surfaces is a fundamental yet challenging operation in computer aided design and manufacturing. Traditional analytical approaches suffer from time-consuming geodesic distance queries and complex self intersection handling, while discrete methods often struggle with precision. In this paper, we propose a totally different algorithm paradigm. Our key insight is that by representing the source curve as a sequence of line segment primitives, the Voronoi decomposition constrained to the parametric surface enables localized offset computation. Specifically, the offsetting process can be efficiently traced by independently visiting the corresponding Voronoi cells. To address the challenge of computing the Voronoi decomposition on parametric surfaces, we introduce two key techniques. First, we employ intrinsic triangulation in the parameter space to accurately capture geodesic distances. Second, instead of directly computing the surface-constrained Voronoi decomposition, we decompose the triangulated parameter plane using a series of plane cutting operations. Experimental results demonstrate that our algorithm achieves superior accuracy and runtime performance compared to existing methods. We also present several practical applications enabled by our approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09333 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ) is a fundamental yet challenging geometric operation in computer-aided design and manufacturing, where both accuracy and run-time performance are crucial. It has garnered significant attention due to its wide range of applications, including surface blending, surface coverage, and path planning [1, 2, 3]. Even if the source curve is smooth and defined in a 2D plane, the result￾ing offset may include cusps. When th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The input mesh (left) and its intrinsic triangulation (right, with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Three primitives (circle, triangle, and square, colored in purple) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Intrinsic Triangle on a Parametric Surface. The geodesic distance be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Voronoi diagram (red) of discretized curve points in parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Extracting the offset curve from a triangle. (a) Unfold the triangle onto a plane along its edges, forming an infinitely high prism with this triangle as the base. (b) Cutting the prism with the plane determined by the distance field. (c) Incrementally cutting the pris…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual comparison of offset curve computation between our method (bottom) and [38] (top) on various parametric surfaces. Our method demonstrates more accurate alignment with theoretical offsets and better preservation of geometric features. The original source curves a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gallery of offset curves computed using our method on various parametric surfaces. For each model, the source curve is shown in red, with offset curves in blue. Surface [38] Ours HD (×10−3 ) CD (×10−3 ) HD (×10−3 ) CD (×10−3 ) Sphere 7.59 2.11 0.71 0.29 Cylinder 8.33 0…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Computation time statistics with respect to discrete points. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Time statistics with respect to offset distance. The computation time increases with larger offset distances, owing to their impact on the propagation region of the distance field. curves show consistency across varying triangulation densities, with close-up windows h…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Offset results under different curve discretization densities. From left to right, top to bottom: results obtained with 50, 100, 200, and 2000 sampling points. Lower discretization densities produce visible segmentation artifacts. The results become visually satisfact…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparative visualization of curve offset results based on different initialization methods. (a) Offset curves obtained using Dijkstra algorithm ini￾tialization; (b) Offset curves generated using suboptimal initialization strategy. Despite these advantages, our approa…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Morphological operations on a parametric surface. Left: original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_17.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    S.-Q. Xin, X. Ying, Y . He, Efficiently computing geodesic offsets on triangle meshes by the extended xin–wang algorithm, Computer-Aided Design 43 (11) (2011) 1468–1476, solid and Physical Modeling 2011. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2011.08.027. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0010448511002260

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cad.2011.08.027 2011

  2. [1]

    P. N. Atkar, A. Greenfield, D. C. Conner, H. Choset, A. A. Rizzi, Uni- form coverage of automotive surface patches, The International Journal of Robotics Research 24 (11) (2005) 883–898.arXiv:https://doi.org/ 10 Input Closing Opening Figure 17: Morphological operations on a parametric surface. Left: original input curve (red); middle: result of the closin...

    2005

  3. [2]

    D. J. Filip, Blending parametric surfaces, ACM Trans. Graph. 8 (3) (1989) 164–173.doi:10.1145/77055.77057. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/77055.77057

    arXiv 1989

  4. [3]

    Lee, Contour offset approach to spiral toolpath generation with con- stant scallop height, Computer-Aided Design 35 (6) (2003) 511–518

    E. Lee, Contour offset approach to spiral toolpath generation with con- stant scallop height, Computer-Aided Design 35 (6) (2003) 511–518. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00185-3. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0010448501001853

    work page doi:10.1016/s0010-4485(01)00185-3 2003

  5. [4]

    M. P. Do Carmo, Differential geometry of curves and surfaces: revised and updated second edition, Courier Dover Publications, 2016

    2016

  6. [5]

    J. M. Beck, R. T. Farouki, J. K. Hinds, Surface analysis methods, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 6 (12) (1986) 18 – 36, cited by: 88. doi:10.1109/MCG.1986.276587. URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2. 0-0022899860&doi=10.1109%2fMCG.1986.276587&partnerID=40& md5=146acb2a22ff312c7b84522f21d148b4

    arXiv 1986

  7. [6]

    Patrikalakis, L

    N. Patrikalakis, L. Bardis, Offsets of curves on rational b-spline sur- faces, Engineering with Computers 5 (1) (1989) 39 – 46, cited by: 51. doi:10.1007/BF01201996. URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2. 0-0024776513&doi=10.1007%2fBF01201996&partnerID=40&md5= b01cee98c61763408a632607a6a28eea

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01201996 1989

  8. [7]

    Sneyd, C

    J. Sneyd, C. S. Peskin, Computation of geodesic trajectories on tubular surfaces, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 11 (2) (1990) 230–241.arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1137/0911014,doi: 10.1137/0911014. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/0911014

    work page doi:10.1137/0911014 1990

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    T. Maekawa, Computation of shortest paths on free-form paramet- ric surfaces, Journal of Mechanical Design 118 (4) (1996) 499– 508.arXiv:https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ mechanicaldesign/article-pdf/118/4/499/5666706/499\ _1.pdf,doi:10.1115/1.2826919. URLhttps://doi.org...

    1996 doi

  2. [9]

    Kasap, M

    E. Kasap, M. Yapici, F. T. Akyildiz, A numerical study for computation of geodesic curves, Applied Mathematics and Computation 171 (2) (2005) 1206–1213.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.01.109. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0096300305001700

    2005 doi

  3. [10]

    C. L. Tucker, Forming of advanced composites (1997)

    1997

  4. [11]

    Ravi Kumar, P

    G. Ravi Kumar, P. Srinivasan, V . Devaraja Holla, K. Shastry, B. Prakash, Geodesic curve computations on surfaces, Computer Aided Geometric Design 20 (2) (2003) 119–133.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8396(03)00023-2. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0...

    2003 doi

  5. [12]

    Polthier, M

    K. Polthier, M. Schmies, Straightest geodesics on polyhedral surfaces, in: ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Courses, 2006, pp. 30–38

    2006

  6. [13]

    Kanai, H

    T. Kanai, H. Suzuki, Approximate shortest path on a polyhedral surface and its applications, Computer-Aided Design 33 (11) (2001) 801–811. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00097-5. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0010448501000975

    2001 doi

  7. [14]

    Mart ´ınez, L

    D. Mart ´ınez, L. Velho, P. C. Carvalho, Computing geodesics on triangular meshes, Computers & Graphics 29 (5) (2005) 667–675. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2005.08.003. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0097849305001299

    2005 doi

  8. [15]

    Surazhsky, T

    V . Surazhsky, T. Surazhsky, D. Kirsanov, S. J. Gortler, H. Hoppe, Fast exact and approximate geodesics on meshes, V ol. 24, 2005, p. 553 – 560, cited by: 450; All Open Access, Green Open Access. doi:10.1145/1073204.1073228. URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2...

    2005

  9. [16]

    Sharp, K

    N. Sharp, K. Crane, You can find geodesic paths in triangle meshes by just flipping edges, ACM Trans. Graph. 39 (6).doi:10.1145/3414685. 3417839. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3414685.3417839

  10. [17]

    P. Bose, A. Maheshwari, C. Shu, S. Wuhrer, A survey of geodesic paths on 3d surfaces, Computational Geometry 44 (9) (2011) 486–498. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comgeo.2011.05.006. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0925772111000459

    2011 doi

  11. [18]

    Aurenhammer, V oronoi diagrams—a survey of a fundamental geometric data structure, ACM Comput

    F. Aurenhammer, V oronoi diagrams—a survey of a fundamental geometric data structure, ACM Comput. Surv. 23 (3) (1991) 345–405.doi:10.1145/ 116873.116880. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/116873.116880

    1991

  12. [19]

    Elber, I.-K

    G. Elber, I.-K. Lee, M.-S. Kim, Comparing offset curve approximation methods, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 17 (3) (1997) 62–71. doi:10.1109/38.586019

    1997 doi

  13. [20]

    Maekawa, N

    T. Maekawa, N. M. Patrikalakis, T. Sakkalis, G. Yu, Analysis and ap- plications of pipe surfaces, Computer Aided Geometric Design 15 (5) (1998) 437–458.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8396(97) 00042-3. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0167839697000423

    1998 doi

  14. [21]

    Pham, Offset curves and surfaces: a brief survey, Computer-Aided Design 24 (4) (1992) 223–229.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0010-4485(92)90059-J

    B. Pham, Offset curves and surfaces: a brief survey, Computer-Aided Design 24 (4) (1992) 223–229.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0010-4485(92)90059-J. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 001044859290059J

    1992

  15. [22]

    Held, On the computational geometry of pocket machining, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991

    M. Held, On the computational geometry of pocket machining, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991

    1991

  16. [23]

    N. M. Patrikalakis, L. Bardis, Offsets of curves on rational b-spline sur- faces, Engineering with Computers 5 (1989) 39–46. URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:26591103

    1989

  17. [24]

    Wolter, S

    F.-E. Wolter, S. T. Tuohy, Approximation of high-degree and procedu- ral curves, Eng. with Comput. 8 (2) (1992) 61–80.doi:10.1007/ BF01200103. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01200103

    1992 doi

  18. [25]

    Brunnett, Geometric modeling of parallel curves on surfaces, in: Geo- metric Modelling, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999, p

    G. Brunnett, Geometric modeling of parallel curves on surfaces, in: Geo- metric Modelling, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999, p. 37–53

    1999

  19. [26]

    Ulmet, Geodesic offsets of spline curves on spline surfaces

    D.-E. Ulmet, Geodesic offsets of spline curves on spline surfaces. – an in- dustrial perspective

  20. [27]

    Tam, H.-W

    H.-Y . Tam, H.-W. Law, H. Xu, A geometric approach to the offsetting of profiles on three-dimensional surfaces, Comput. Aided Des. 36 (2004) 887– 902. URLhttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:32309998

    2004

  21. [28]

    J. Xu, Y . Sun, L. Zhang, A mapping-based approach to elim- inating self-intersection of offset paths on mesh surfaces for cnc machining, Computer-Aided Design 62 (2015) 131–142. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2014.11.010. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi...

    2015 doi

  22. [29]

    J. Xu, Y . Wang, X. Zhang, S. Chang, Contour-parallel tool path gen- eration for three-axis mesh surface machining based on one-step in- verse forming, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 227 (12) (2013) 1800– 1807...

    2013 doi

  23. [30]

    H.-Y . Feng, H. Li, Constant scallop-height tool path generation for 11 three-axis sculptured surface machining, Computer-Aided Design 34 (9) (2002) 647–654.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01) 00136-1. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0010448501001361

    2002 doi

  24. [31]

    Sarma, D

    R. Sarma, D. Dutta, The geometry and generation of nc tool paths, Journal of Mechanical Design 119 (2) (1997) 253–258.arXiv: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign/ article-pdf/119/2/253/5920524/253\_1.pdf,doi:10.1115/1. 2826244. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1115/1.2826244

    1997 doi

  25. [32]

    Suresh, D

    K. Suresh, D. C. H. Yang, Constant scallop-height machining of free- form surfaces, Journal of Engineering for Industry 116 (2) (1994) 253–259.arXiv:https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ manufacturingscience/article-pdf/116/2/253/6507498/253\ _1.pdf,doi:10.1115/1.2901938. UR...

    1994 doi

  26. [33]

    P. Wang, J. Song, L. Wang, S. Xin, D.-M. Yan, S. Chen, C. Tu, W. Wang, Towards voronoi diagrams of surface patches, IEEE Transactions on Visu- alization and Computer Graphics (2025) 1–15doi:10.1109/TVCG.2025. 3531445

    2025 doi

  27. [34]

    Rausch, F.-E

    T. Rausch, F.-E. Wolter, O. Sniehotta, Computation of Medial Curves in Surfaces, V ol. 7, 2006

    2006

  28. [35]

    Holla, K

    V . Holla, K. Shastry, B. Prakash, Offset of curves on tessel- lated surfaces, Computer-Aided Design 35 (12) (2003) 1099–1108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(02)00181-1. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0010448502001811

    2003 doi

  29. [36]

    Kimmel, J

    R. Kimmel, J. A. Sethian, Computing geodesic paths on manifolds, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (15) (1998) 8431– 8435.arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.95. 15.8431,doi:10.1073/pnas.95.15.8431. URLhttps://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.95.15.8431

    1998 doi

  30. [37]

    Y .-J. Liu, Semi-continuity of skeletons in two-manifold and discrete voronoi approximation, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence 37 (9) (2015) 1938–1944.doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2015. 2430342

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    Sharp, Y

    N. Sharp, Y . Soliman, K. Crane, Navigating intrinsic triangulations, ACM Trans. Graph. 38 (4)

  32. [40]

    X. Li, S. McMains, A voronoi diagram approach for detecting defects in 3d printed fiber-reinforced polymers from microscope images, Computational Visual Media 9 (1) (2023) 41–56.doi:10.1007/s41095-021-0265-1. URLhttps://www.sciopen.com/article/10.1007/ s41095-021-0265-1

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    W. Meng, P. Bo, X. Zhang, J. Hong, S. Xin, C. Tu, An efficient algorithm for approximate voronoi diagram constructionon triangu- lated surfaces, Computational Visual Media 9 (3) (2023) 443–459. doi:10.1007/s41095-022-0326-0. URLhttps://www.sciopen.com/article/10.1007/ s41095-0...

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    P. Wang, J. Song, S. Xin, S. Chen, C. Tu, W. Wang, J. Wang, Efficient nearest neighbor search using dynamic programming (2024).arXiv: 2409.15023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15023

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    S. Xin, P. Wang, R. Xu, D. Yan, S. Chen, W. Wang, C. Zhang, C. Tu, Sur- facevoronoi: Efficiently computing voronoi diagrams over mesh surfaces with arbitrary distance solvers, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 41 (6) (2022) 1–12. 12

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.