Papers for

product designers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Physically stable 3D parts generated from a single image

SNAP3D: Physically Grounded 3D Parts for Assembly from a Single Image

Abstract: Part-aware 3D asset generation enables applications such as editing, articulation, simulation, and fabrication, yet existing methods can generate visually complete individual parts without ensuring that they form a valid physical assembly. Consequently, generated neighboring parts may interpenetrate, lack valid connections, or collapse under gravity. We propose a physics-guided framework for improving single-image part-aware 3D generation with physically compatible geometry and stable connections. Our method resolves inter-part penetration, recovers a contact graph between neighboring parts, and introduces parameterized connectors at their contact surfaces. Using feedback from physical simulation, we refine connector placement, orientation, and dimensions to improve assembly stability while preserving the generated geometry. We further introduce a physics-based evaluation protocol that complements conventional geometric metrics by directly testing assembly validity and stability under gravity. Experiments comparing against multiple part-aware 3D generators show substantial improvements in physical realizability and stability while maintaining geometric quality. We additionally validate the resulting parts through 3D printing and real-world assembly.

Fri 11 SeptGraphicsComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Creating 3D models made of multiple parts from a single image is tricky because parts may not fit together correctly or may fall apart. The authors designed a method that uses physics rules to fix overlapping parts, identify how parts touch, and add connectors that keep them stably attached. They use a physics simulation to adjust the connectors, ensuring the final 3D assembly can stand up to gravity and is physically realistic. Their method also includes tests to check if the assembled parts are stable, and they demonstrated that the parts can be 3D printed and put together in real life.
Open 2609.13146v1

Guide suggests user preferences by smart questions during talks

GUIDE: Generative Utility Inference and Decision Engine

Abstract: Measuring the preferences of human users remains a fundamental challenge of AI alignment. Existing elicitation approaches struggle to efficiently discover multidimensional preferences or accurately ground these inferences in domain knowledge. To address this, we introduce GUIDE, an LLM-driven elicitation architecture that infers user preferences through conversations by combining Bayesian adaptive sampling for question selection and symbolic representation learning to initialize domain-specific preference models. GUIDE generalizes adaptive sampling to diverse elicitation questions through an extensible type system of transforms on a parameterized preference state. GUIDE produces domain-specific preference representations through an initialization process using symbolic rule-based learning to capture world knowledge and set priors over preference dimensions grounded in data about decision alternatives. The architecture provides observability and steerability to facilitate deployment and analyze elicitation processes. In silico experiments on investment portfolio optimization demonstrate that GUIDE improves cold-start and minimizes recommendation regret consistently within early elicitation interactions across user personas compared to prior work, LLM-only baselines, and ablated GUIDE versions.

Thu 10 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
People have many preferences that are hard for computers to understand, especially when these preferences involve many different factors. The authors created GUIDE, a computer system that chats with users and asks smart questions to quickly learn what they like. It uses both clever sampling methods to pick questions and rules about the world to better guess preferences. When they tested GUIDE on choosing investment portfolios, it made better recommendations early on compared to other methods. This helps computers make choices more closely matched to what users really want.
Open 2609.12137v1

3D printing hinges that sense multiple movements without extra parts

X-Hinges: 3D Printing Self-Sensing Compliant Mechanisms for Continuous and Multi-DOF Motion Sensing

Abstract: We present X-Hinges, a design and fabrication method for self-sensing compliant mechanisms based on multi-material FDM 3D printing. By co-printing two conductive filaments of different conductivities within a compliant body, we embed resistive sensing elements directly during fabrication without post-assembly, enabling continuous motion sensing across multiple degrees of freedom in a single print. The structure supports three degrees of freedom, each equipped with a dedicated sensing element configuration for multi-DOF motion estimation. We develop a precision data acquisition system and data-driven regression models that enable continuous, real-time motion sensing. We also introduce an interactive design tool for customizing the geometry, mechanical properties, degrees of freedom, and sensing configurations of X-Hinges. The tool also supports augmenting existing 3D models with self-sensing structures, endowing ordinary objects with continuous multi-DOF sensing capabilities. Finally, we present a set of application examples demonstrating the capability of X-Hinges for fabricating personalized interactive interfaces.

Thu 10 SeptHuman-Computer Interaction
The gist
Devices often need sensors to know how they move, but these usually require extra parts and assembly. The authors created hinges that can be 3D printed with special materials to sense their own motion in several directions all at once. By mixing different conductive plastics during printing, their hinges measure movement continuously without adding sensors later. They also built tools to design and use these self-sensing hinges in various objects.
Open 2609.11077v1

Human authorship depends on reflective shaping in generative ai creation

What Makes Creation Human? Authorship, Reasons, and Meaningful Human Control in Generative AI

Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) significantly expands creators' productive capacity, but this does not necessarily entail a corresponding increase in creative agency or authorship. This paper distinguishes creativity at the level of the work from creative agency at the level of the creator, and argues that human authorship cannot be determined solely by manual intervention, degree of automation, the origin of an initial idea, or final selection authority. Rather, authorship depends on whether human judgment and reasons genuinely shape the development of the work. To articulate this requirement, the paper introduces Meaningful Human Control (MHC) into generative creation and identifies a limitation of its classical tracking condition. Creative reasons are not always fully specified prior to interaction with AI; they may emerge, change, or be abandoned as the creative process unfolds. The paper therefore proposes dynamic-reflexive tracking (DRT), which requires that a creator's evolving reasons undergo reflective uptake, exert genuine influence on the subsequent trajectory of creation, and remain capable of rejecting and redirecting the system's default direction. DRT consists of four conditions: diachronic reason formation, reflective uptake, trajectory efficacy, and contestability and redirection, together with a minimal tracing requirement. The paper argues that human authorship under generative AI depends not on how many steps a person personally performs, but on whether that person's reasons continuously, reflectively, and effectively shape what the work becomes.

Wed 9 SeptHuman-Computer InteractionComputers and Society
The gist
Generative AI can help produce creative works, but this doesn't mean the person using the AI is truly the author. The paper explains that authorship depends on whether a person's judgments and reasons actively and thoughtfully shape the creative process as it happens. It introduces a new idea called dynamic-reflexive tracking that ensures humans can guide, change, or stop the AI’s work based on their evolving intentions. This approach shows that authorship is about continuous, meaningful control, not just how much a person hands-on operates the AI.
Open 2609.10738v1

AI assistant functions influence trust differently based on user knowledge

How Far Do Capability Cues Travel? Anthropomorphism and Differentiated Trust in a Platform-Embedded AI Assistant

Abstract: Visible AI capabilities need not translate into broader judgments of trustworthiness. In a randomized 2 x 2 experiment with 270 U.S.-based Reddit users, an embedded assistant displayed one or three functions, with or without a brief rationale. Displaying three functions increased perceived multifunctionality; no other randomized main effect survived correction across the six outcomes. Rationale availability did not reliably increase perceived intelligence. Exploratory analysis indicated stronger uptake of the functional display at higher objective AI literacy. Among concurrently measured judgments, perceived multifunctionality was associated with perceived intelligence, which was associated with anthropomorphism and all three trust dimensions. After accounting for perceived intelligence, anthropomorphism was positively associated with benevolence, but not reliably with integrity or ability. These findings separate interface effects from relationships among users' perceptions and show why ability, integrity, and benevolence should be evaluated separately.

Wed 9 SeptHuman-Computer Interaction
The gist
People don't always trust AI assistants just because they see the AI can do more things. The authors showed that when an assistant displayed three functions instead of one, users perceived it as more multifunctional, but this didn't always increase trust in intelligence. Giving explanations for the functions didn't make users think the AI was smarter. People who knew more about AI responded more strongly to seeing more functions. How users view the AI’s intelligence, anthropomorphism (seeing it as human-like), and trust factors like benevolence, integrity, and ability are related but different.
Open 2609.09713v1

Multi-source feedback integration boosts design confidence and flexibility

Integrating Multi-Source Feedback in Computational Design

Abstract: In real-world design practice, evaluations rarely rely on a single source of judgment. Designers routinely combine expert opinions, empirical studies, and computational models, each with distinct strengths and limitations. While machine learning offers methods to integrate multiple feedback sources, these approaches remain largely inaccessible to designers without technical expertise. In this paper, we explore how to integrate multiple feedback sources, primarily through: (1) a practical approach for multi-source integration, and (2) its implementation in MUSE, a no-code tool that allows designers to combine and balance diverse sources. Our technical findings show that independent modeling of multiple evaluation sources enables exploration across heterogeneous feedback, accommodates different evaluation speeds, surfaces disagreements between sources, and supports an adaptable evaluation setup that designers can reconfigure during their process. In a visualization design study, participants navigated their own judgments alongside simulator feedback, reporting a perception of enhanced confidence and flexibility. Our results highlight the viability of multi-source integration to support computational design, offering a step toward bridging the gap between advanced optimization methods and design practice.

Tue 8 SeptHuman-Computer Interaction
The gist
Designers often get feedback from many places like experts, experiments, and computer models, but it’s hard to combine all that information easily. The authors show a way to bring together different types of feedback in one tool called MUSE that doesn’t need coding skills. This tool helps designers see when feedback disagrees, lets them adjust how much they trust each source, and use feedback at different speeds. People using MUSE felt more sure about their designs and could work more flexibly. This method helps connect advanced computer analysis with how designers actually work.
Open 2609.09483v1