conformallab/ConformalLabpp
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity

docs(reviewer): baustein D — close Java-scan + lit-integration gaps

Browse Source 
Earlier baustein B (`07c653c`) added a 6-row Research-Alignments table
+ a "what's new" banner, but only surfaced ~75 % of what the four
Java-scan + literature-integration commits (`f854f0e`, `979f30c`,
`e8a118f`, `8daee1b`) had introduced.  This commit closes the gaps
identified in the lückenprüfung:

Research-Alignments table grows from 6 → 10 rows
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
* +quasi-isothermic maps  (Phase 10e, Java port — 6 classes incl.
  discrete Beltrami-field solver, Lawson correspondence ~800 lines)
* +higher-genus + hyperelliptic surfaces (Phase 10b — `HyperellipticUtility`
  + Bobenko–Bücking 2009)
* +Möbius centring as variational problem (Phase 9d.4 — replaces the
  iterative Fréchet-mean fallback in `normalise_hyperbolic()`)
* +Boundary-First / interactive flattening row (Crane 2017 BFF; Stripe
  Patterns 2015) — listed for comparison even though it is not on the
  porting roadmap, so the reader sees we know about it
* table caption clarifies that some rows are RESEARCH-only (no Java
  parent) and some are planned ports

"What's new" banner
───────────────────
* citation count corrected from "+9" to "+13" — the four Tier-2 papers
  added in commit `e8a118f` (Springborn 2019, Springborn–Veselov 2015,
  Crane 2017 BFF, Bonneel et al. 2015 Stripe Patterns) are now named
* phase count of "+6 phases" kept, but +Phase 9d.4 (Möbius centring)
  and +Phase 10e (quasi-isothermic) are now called out explicitly so
  the reader knows what is in the count
* cross-link to `java-parity.md` for the reverse table (every Java
  class → C++ destination or *do-not-port* rationale)

questions.md / Q1
─────────────────
* expand the table from 3 to 6 candidate phases — adding 10e (quasi-
  isothermic), 10b (hyperelliptic), and 9d.4 (Möbius centring) as
  options alongside the existing 9d.2 / 9f / 10c+10c′
* track column distinguishes RESEARCH-only from planned-port
* +Question C — "is there a seventh line we are missing?" — invites
  the reader to flag a research thread we have not scoped yet

Pages hub will be refreshed to v5 in a follow-up step (separate from
the in-repo commit, lives only on the codeberg `pages` branch).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Tarik Moussa
2026-05-26 06:18:26 +02:00
committed by Tarik Moussa
parent 9be11eca4e
commit 0c520046fb
2 changed files with 56 additions and 27 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

35
doc/reviewer/questions.md
View File

@@ -21,18 +21,22 @@ These are the seven items that would benefit most from a second opinion.
---
## Q1 — Research-track alignment: which RESEARCH phase would unblock concrete experiments you want to run?
## Q1 — Research-track alignment: which RESEARCH or planned phase would unblock concrete experiments you want to run?
Three phases in `doc/roadmap/research-track.md` are research-only
(no Java parent, no immediate user request), but each maps onto a
recognised live research line and each has explicit acceptance
criteria:
The roadmap now contains six phases close to live research lines,
each with concrete acceptance criteria (or, for the Java-port phases,
a clear specification from the Java original). Three are RESEARCH-only
(no Java parent, no immediate user request); three are Java-port
phases whose existence is settled but whose priority is open:
| Phase | What it would add | Closest published line |
|---|---|---|
| **9d.2** | Decorated DCE in non-Euclidean (spherical + hyperbolic) geometries; Penner coordinates as first-class DOF; automatic cone placement for non-Euclidean targets | Decorated DCE in non-Euclidean geometries (2025, *Discrete Comput. Geom.*); optimal cone singularities for Euclidean flattening (2018, *SIGGRAPH*) |
| **9f** | Discrete Laplace–Beltrami on **non-triangular** polygonal meshes (virtual-node / generalised cotangent), making DCE work on quad / Voronoi tessellations without re-triangulation | Polygon Laplacians (2011 *SIGGRAPH* + 2020 *TOG*) |
| **10c + 10c′** | Canonical Delaunay tessellations of decorated hyperbolic surfaces; Koebe polyhedron realisation (KAT) with rigidity-aware Newton | Canonical tessellations of decorated hyperbolic surfaces (2023, *Geom. Dedicata*); rigidity of circle / hyperideal polyhedra (2026, preprint) |
| Phase | Track | What it would add | Closest published line |
|---|---|---|---|
| **9d.2** | RESEARCH | Decorated DCE in non-Euclidean (spherical + hyperbolic) geometries; Penner coordinates as first-class DOF; automatic cone placement for non-Euclidean targets | Decorated DCE in non-Euclidean geometries (2025, *Discrete Comput. Geom.*); optimal cone singularities for Euclidean flattening (2018, *SIGGRAPH*) |
| **9f** | RESEARCH | Discrete Laplace–Beltrami on **non-triangular** polygonal meshes (virtual-node / generalised cotangent), making DCE work on quad / Voronoi tessellations without re-triangulation | Polygon Laplacians (2011 *SIGGRAPH* + 2020 *TOG*) |
| **10c + 10c′** | planned | Canonical Delaunay tessellations of decorated hyperbolic surfaces; Koebe polyhedron realisation (KAT) with rigidity-aware Newton | Canonical tessellations of decorated hyperbolic surfaces (2023, *Geom. Dedicata*); rigidity of circle / hyperideal polyhedra (2026, preprint) |
| **10e** | planned | Quasi-isothermic maps (~800 lines Lawson-correspondence) — generalises conformality to meshes where exact conformality is impossible. Six new classes including a discrete Beltrami-field solver. | Java original `QuasiisothermicUtility` line; no obvious single-paper reference in the existing literature index |
| **10b** | planned | Hyperelliptic surfaces (genus g ≥ 2 with Z₂ symmetry); period matrices with block-diagonal structure; Penner-coordinate variant via `HyperIdealHyperellipticUtility` | Bobenko–Bücking 2009 *Conformal Structures and Period Matrices of Polyhedral Surfaces* |
| **9d.4** | planned | Möbius centring of Poincaré-disk layouts as a *variational* problem (Lorentz energy with full gradient + Hessian), replacing today's iterative Fréchet-mean fallback in `normalise_hyperbolic()` | Java original `MobiusCenteringFunctional`; closest published context: decorated-DCE Möbius normalisation, also used in canonical-tessellation post-processing |
**Question A:** which of these (if any) would unblock concrete
numerical experiments you have wanted to run but currently have no
@@ -42,10 +46,17 @@ reference implementation for?
target the *next* milestone after Phase 9c, or is there a different
order that would serve your research better?
**Question C:** is there a *seventh* line we are missing — a research
thread close to your own where you would want infrastructure that the
table above does not yet cover?
Context:
[`research-track.md`](../roadmap/research-track.md) §"Non-Euclidean
cone extensions" and §"Polygon Laplacian"; the integrated literature
sits in [`math/references.md`](../math/references.md).
cone extensions" and §"Polygon Laplacian";
[`phases.md`](../roadmap/phases.md) for the per-phase porting plan;
[`java-parity.md`](../roadmap/java-parity.md) for the reverse Java
class table; the integrated literature sits in
[`math/references.md`](../math/references.md).
---