FanQY commited on
Commit
df345c1
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): fbfa4c5

Upload README.md with huggingface_hub

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +10 -5
README.md CHANGED
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ configs:
52
 
53
  # GeomCAD
54
 
55
- A procedural benchmark of executable CAD programs paired with watertight meshes, spanning four
56
  generative operations — **extrude**, **revolve**, **sweep**, and **loft** — at roughly one million
57
  samples per operation. Every numerical literal in every program is an integer in `[0, 1000]`, 1,001 levels, which
58
  makes exact parameter-level comparison (Parameter Exact Match) well defined rather than approximate.
@@ -133,9 +133,11 @@ also be exported to industrial B-Rep formats.
133
 
134
  ## Integer parameters
135
 
136
- Numeric literals are min–max normalised per script and rewritten as integers in `[0, 1000]`, and a
137
- validity gate constrains each solid to the canonical cube `[0, 1000]^3`, so parameter values and
138
- spatial dimensions share one scale. Physical dimensions reported elsewhere (for example in figures
 
 
139
  comparing against float-parameter baselines) are the result of applying the per-script inverse map,
140
  and are therefore real-valued even though the program literals are not.
141
 
@@ -150,7 +152,10 @@ and are therefore real-valued even though the program literals are not.
150
  | **total** | **3,995,521** | **4,661** | **6,000** | **4,006,182** |
151
 
152
  Training and validation come from each operation's procedural pool; the test split is generated
153
- independently through the same pipeline, and no program is shared across splits. Validation is
 
 
 
154
  1,500 for extrude and smaller elsewhere because those held-out sets were carved from
155
  multi-operation training mixtures and only the rows belonging to each operation are kept here.
156
 
 
52
 
53
  # GeomCAD
54
 
55
+ A procedural benchmark of executable CAD programs paired with triangle meshes, spanning four
56
  generative operations — **extrude**, **revolve**, **sweep**, and **loft** — at roughly one million
57
  samples per operation. Every numerical literal in every program is an integer in `[0, 1000]`, 1,001 levels, which
58
  makes exact parameter-level comparison (Parameter Exact Match) well defined rather than approximate.
 
133
 
134
  ## Integer parameters
135
 
136
+ Numeric literals are min–max normalised per script and rewritten as integers in `[0, 1000]`, so
137
+ every parameter a model must predict is drawn from one 1,001-level grid. The extent of the
138
+ resulting solid is a consequence of the operation applied and is not itself constrained to that
139
+ range; revolving a profile about an axis, for instance, carries it to the far side and spans about
140
+ twice the profile radius by construction. Physical dimensions reported elsewhere (for example in figures
141
  comparing against float-parameter baselines) are the result of applying the per-script inverse map,
142
  and are therefore real-valued even though the program literals are not.
143
 
 
152
  | **total** | **3,995,521** | **4,661** | **6,000** | **4,006,182** |
153
 
154
  Training and validation come from each operation's procedural pool; the test split is generated
155
+ independently through the same pipeline. Overlap at the level of sample indices is exactly zero. At
156
+ the stricter level of program text, 15 training rows reproduce a test program (revolve 1, sweep 14)
157
+ and one reproduces a validation program; they are listed in `REPRODUCIBILITY.md` and removed by the
158
+ audit shipped with the corpus. Validation is
159
  1,500 for extrude and smaller elsewhere because those held-out sets were carved from
160
  multi-operation training mixtures and only the rows belonging to each operation are kept here.
161