Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Adaptive 3D UI Placement in Mixed Reality Using Deep Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A deep reinforcement learning agent can keep a mixed-reality 3D menu visible, reachable, and collision-free as the user moves.

desk verdict A plausible first step toward RL-driven 3D UI placement in MR, but the printed reachability reward contradicts the reported results and must be fixed before the feasibility claim can be verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21731 v1 pith:AMAMWQYN submitted 2025-04-30 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CV

Feiyu Lu , Mengyu Chen , Hsiang Hsu , Pranav Deshpande , Cheng Yao Wang , Blair MacIntyre This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CV
keywords mixedrealityreinforcementlearning3DUIplacementadaptiveuserinterfacemobilescenariosproximalpolicyoptimizationviewmanagementsimulationtraining
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 asks whether deep reinforcement learning can replace per-frame optimization for placing a 3D user interface in mixed reality as a user moves through an indoor space. It trains a policy-gradient agent in a physics simulator that applies a 3D force vector to a piece of virtual content every few steps, with a reward balancing visibility, reachability, non-collision, and stability. In simulated tests across multiple indoor scenes, the agent keeps the interface visible 84–93% of the time, avoids object collisions most steps, and stays within arm's reach, even with a moving obstacle. The authors conclude that a single learned policy could adapt UI placement on the go, though scalability to real users remains untested.

What carries the argument

The central object is a proximal policy optimization (PPO) actor–critic agent acting in a physics-based simulator. At each step the agent's observation includes 22 rays cast around the content that report hits against the environment mesh, the content's position, rotation, direction, and velocity, its distance to the user, and the user's position and direction. The action is a three-dimensional continuous force vector in $[-1,1]^3$ applied to the content, letting the physics engine accelerate or decelerate it. The reward is $R = R_{\text{visibility}} + R_{\text{reachability}} + R_{\text{physicality}} + R_{\text{stability}}$, with scale and thresholds tuned empirically. This machinery recasts UI placement as a sequential control problem: instead of re-solving an optimization whenever the user moves, the agent learns a policy that maps observations directly to placement adjustments.

What would settle it

Run the trained policy on recorded trajectories of real users walking through an office or living room, either in a mixed-reality headset or by replaying their tracked poses in the same simulator, and measure the fraction of time the UI is visible, collision-free, and within arm's reach. If visibility falls below the simulated 84% or the UI frequently collides or drifts out of reach, then the simulated-user assumption is the point of failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors demonstrate that a model-free reinforcement learning agent, trained with proximal policy optimization, can learn a policy that continuously maneuvers a single world-anchored 3D interface in a dynamic mixed-reality setting. The policy takes as input the content's surroundings (ray casts), its own position and motion, and the user's position and facing direction, then emits a force vector that the physics simulation applies to the content. The reward is a sum of four components: visibility (pixel percentage of the content in the user's view), reachability (an exponential function of distance when the content is in front of the user), physicality (penalty for overlap with the environment), and stability (penalty for fast content when the user is still). In the paper's preliminary evaluation, the trained agent generalizes to unseen rooms and to a randomly moving obstacle, keeping visible UI percentage above roughly 83% and non-collision percentage above roughly 82% while staying near a half-meter distance baseline. From this the authors conclude that reinforcement learning is a viable alternative to optimization-based methods for sequential, context-aware 3D UI placement in mobile mixed reality.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that a simulated user stopping at random grid points facing random directions is a faithful enough proxy for a real person walking with intent, so the policy learned from that simulation will serve actual users; the authors acknowledge this mismatch in their problem formulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single trained policy can run at interactive rates on a mobile device, deciding the UI position every few steps without recomputing an optimization from scratch.
  • The policy's behavior transfers to room layouts it never trained on, with only a modest drop in visibility, suggesting that simulation-based training in a few scenes may cover unseen indoor spaces.
  • The agent can compensate for an unexpected moving obstacle by trading a little visibility for collision avoidance, indicating the approach may handle bystanders or moving furniture.
  • The hand-crafted reward is modular: adding semantic, ergonomic, or preference-based terms later would reshape placement without changing the learning algorithm.
  • Because evaluation is entirely simulated, the paper's direct claim is about a simulated mobile user; real-world generalization is explicitly left open.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next experiment is to record real pedestrian trajectories with a head-mounted device and replay them through the same simulator; if the visibility and reachability metrics stay near the simulated values, the grid-based user model may be sufficient for training.
  • The force-vector action space behaves like a learned PD controller for UI position; a simple spring-to-view-center baseline with collision avoidance would quantify how much the RL training adds over a hand-tuned controller.
  • The paper's reported high average UI speed suggests the stability reward is too weak when the user is moving; conditioning the penalty on user velocity rather than only on user stillness would be a cheap, testable fix.
  • The same training loop could be extended to multiple UI elements by treating each as an independent agent with a shared reward, testing whether multi-agent cooperation emerges without redesigning observations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript presents a deep reinforcement learning approach for continuous 3D UI placement in mixed reality. The agent observes the user's pose, distance to the environment, and other state information, then outputs a 3D force vector to move a single virtual content item via physics simulation. The policy is trained with PPO in two Unity-simulated Replica scenes using a composite reward that combines visibility, reachability, physicality, and stability terms. A preliminary evaluation is conducted in the two training scenes and two held-out validation scenes, with and without a moving obstacle, reporting high visible UI percentage, non-collision percentage, and small distance offsets. The paper positions this as the first RL-based 3D UI placement in MR and discusses future directions such as multi-agent RL and RLHF.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper offers a promising alternative to per-frame optimization for adaptive MR interfaces, enabling continuous placement decisions without re-solving an objective at each step. The authors are explicit about limitations, including the simulated user's fidelity, the absence of comparison to optimization methods, and the observed instability of the UI. The paper provides a concrete training and evaluation setup that can be reproduced and extended. However, the central feasibility claim is currently undermined by a likely error in the published reachability reward equation, the lack of baselines or statistical variation, and the fact that the evaluation metrics are essentially the same as the trained reward terms. These issues must be addressed before the claims can be assessed fairly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.3, Eq. (2)] The reachability reward is written as R_reachability = 0.1 * exp(((Dist - 0.5)^4) / 0.05) when the UI is in front of the user. Because the exponent has no minus sign, this function grows without bound as Dist moves away from 0.5 m: at Dist = 1.0 m it is approximately 0.349, and at Dist = 2.0 m it is astronomically large. This is the opposite of a kernel peaked at a 0.5 m target. Table 1 reports distance offsets of 0.04 to 0.31 m, so either the implementation contains a minus sign missing from the manuscript, in which case Eq. (2) must be corrected, or the reported distances do not follow from the stated reward, in which case the claim that the agent maximizes the designed reward is unsupported. This issue is load-bearing because the entire feasibility argument rests on the semantics of the reward function.
  2. [Section 4.1/4.2, Table 1] The evaluation reports only single values for each heuristic and environment, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, number of seeds, or number of evaluation episodes. Since PPO is stochastic and training used six parallel instances, it is unknown whether these values are robust across runs. Furthermore, there is no baseline comparison, such as a random policy, a heuristic like 'keep the UI in front of the user at 0.5 m', or an optimization-based method. Without such comparisons, the claim that RL 'demonstrates the potential' for 3D UI placement cannot be distinguished from trivial or heuristic behavior. The authors acknowledge the missing comparison in Section 5, but this is a central aspect of the paper's stated contribution and should be addressed.
  3. [Section 4.1 vs Section 3.2.3] The evaluation heuristics (visible UI %, non-collision %, distance offset, speed) are direct aggregates of the trained reward terms (visibility, physicality, reachability, stability). The positive results therefore partly reflect the fact that the agent was optimized for these very metrics. This does not invalidate the approach, but it does mean the evaluation provides limited evidence about the general utility of the placement. An ablation study or an independent outcome measure, such as task performance, user preference, or ergonomic models, is needed to substantiate the claim of adaptive, useful placement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'These include, but and not limited to' contains a typo; it should read 'but are not limited to.'
  2. [Figure 2(c)] The caption describes a histogram with 'the reward distribution (x-axis) in relation to the total number of steps (y-axis)', but a histogram typically places the binned variable on the x-axis and counts on the y-axis; please clarify the axes.
  3. [Table 1 caption] The caption does not state whether the reported values are means, over how many time steps or episodes, or how many evaluation runs were performed; please specify this to make the results interpretable.
  4. [Section 4.2] The statement that 'the drops of visibility/physicality were capped at 3.12%' is ambiguous; it should specify the baseline (e.g., compared to the static condition for the same environment) and clarify whether the comparison is across all environments or only validation environments.
  5. [Section 3.2.3] The authors state that thresholds for V_c and P_percent were determined empirically but do not report the chosen values; please include these values or a reference to a supplementary resource to improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RL reward/evaluation overlap is a limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's reasoning chain is empirical rather than derivational: a PPO agent is trained in Unity/ML-Agents on a hand-crafted reward (Eqs. 1-4), then evaluated in Replica scenes on heuristics (visible UI %, non-collision %, distance offset, speed) that deliberately mirror the reward objectives. This overlap weakens the evaluation as evidence for real-world utility, but it is not circular in the sense required here: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing claim is justified exclusively by a self-citation, and no equation reduces to another by construction. The printed reachability reward in Eq. (2) appears to have a sign issue (as written it rewards distance rather than proximity to the 0.5 m target), but that is a correctness/implementation discrepancy, not a circularity. The authors explicitly acknowledge the simulated-user limitation and the absence of comparisons to optimization baselines, framing the work as an initial feasibility study. No circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the reward design with hand-tuned constants, the simulated user model, and the Replica scenes; none of these are validated against real MR users. The tuning of reward thresholds is a free-parameter issue, and the simulated user is an acknowledged domain assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • Reward scale weights = 0.1 and 0.01
    Reward scales for visibility, reachability, physicality, and stability terms; the paper states they 'followed prior guidelines and our testing', so they are chosen by hand and affect the learned policy.
  • Reachability target distance and kernel scale = 0.5 m and 0.05
    Equation (2) defines the reachability reward using distance to the user and an exponential kernel; the 0.5 m baseline and the kernel denominator are hand-set constants.
  • Stability velocity threshold = 0.3 m/s
    Equation (4) uses V_c < 0.3 to decide the stationary reward; the threshold is stated as determined empirically.
  • Action interval = 5 time steps
    The agent produces a force every five steps; this is a designer-chosen control frequency that shapes the dynamics and learning problem.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Replica dataset scenes are representative enough of real indoor environments for training and validation.
    The agent is trained and evaluated only in four Replica rooms; the paper claims generalizability to two new scenes, but all are from the same dataset (Sections 3.1 and 4.1).
  • domain assumption The simulated user's random grid stops and random facing directions capture the distribution over which good placements must generalize.
    The authors state that real-world trajectory data is largely unavailable and use synthetic stops instead (Section 3.1). This is an unverified surrogate for real user behavior.
  • domain assumption The Unity physics simulation faithfully models content movement in MR, including acceleration, deceleration, and collisions.
    The agent's actions are force vectors applied in a physics simulation (Section 3.2.2); the paper does not validate against real MR tracking or rendering latency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive 3D UI Placement in Mixed Reality Using Deep Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AMAMWQYN

@misc{pith2026250421731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive 3D UI Placement in Mixed Reality Using Deep Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AMAMWQYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21731}
}
read the original abstract

Mixed Reality (MR) could assist users' tasks by continuously integrating virtual content with their view of the physical environment. However, where and how to place these content to best support the users has been a challenging problem due to the dynamic nature of MR experiences. In contrast to prior work that investigates optimization-based methods, we are exploring how reinforcement learning (RL) could assist with continuous 3D content placement that is aware of users' poses and their surrounding environments. Through an initial exploration and preliminary evaluation, our results demonstrate the potential of RL to position content that maximizes the reward for users on the go. We further identify future directions for research that could harness the power of RL for personalized and optimized UI and content placement in MR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21731 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A demonstration of our reinforcement learning (RL) framework to assist 3D UI placement in dynamic mixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Simulating user movement during training by dynamically interpolating an avatar along a 3D Cartesian grid facing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) A snapshot of the training in which a UI driven by RL gauges its distances to surroundings and simulated user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Azuma and C

    R. Azuma and C. Furmanski. 2003. Evaluating label placement for augmented reality view management. In The Second IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2003. Proceedings. 66–75. https://doi.org/10. 1109/ISMAR.2003.1240689

    arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    Michael A Bekos, Benjamin Niedermann, and Martin Nöllenburg. 2019. External labeling techniques: A taxonomy and survey. InComputer Graphics Forum, Vol. 38. Wiley Online Library, 833–860

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Blaine Bell, Steven Feiner, and Tobias Höllerer. 2001. View Management for Virtual and Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Sym- posium on User Interface Software and Technology (Orlando, Florida) (UIST ’01). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 101–110. https: //doi.org/10.1145/502348.502363

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Christopher Berner, Greg Brockman, Brooke Chan, Vicki Cheung, Przemysław Dębiak, Christy Dennison, David Farhi, Quirin Fischer, Shariq Hashme, Chris Hesse, et al. 2019. Dota 2 with large scale deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06680 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Florent Cabric, Emmanuel Dubois, and Marcos Serrano. 2021. A Predictive Performance Model for Immersive Interactions in Mixed Reality. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR52148.2021.00035

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Panayiotis Charalambous, Julien Pettre, Vassilis Vassiliades, Yiorgos Chrysan- thou, and Nuria Pelechano. 2023. GREIL-Crowds: Crowd Simulation with Deep Reinforcement Learning and Examples. ACM Trans. Graph. 42, 4, Article 137 (jul 2023), 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3592459

    work page doi:10.1145/3592459 2023

  7. [7]

    Changan Chen, Yuejiang Liu, Sven Kreiss, and Alexandre Alahi. 2019. Crowd- Robot Interaction: Crowd-Aware Robot Navigation With Attention-Based Deep Reinforcement Learning. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA). 6015–6022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2019.8794134

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Zhu-Tian Chen, Daniele Chiappalupi, Tica Lin, Yalong Yang, Johanna Beyer, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2023. RL-LABEL: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach Intended for AR Label Placement in Dynamic Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG. 2023.3326568

    arXiv 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [10]

    Yi Fei Cheng, Yukang Yan, Xin Yi, Yuanchun Shi, and David Lindlbauer. 2021. SemanticAdapt: Optimization-Based Adaptation of Mixed Reality Layouts Lever- aging Virtual-Physical Semantic Connections. In The 34th Annual ACM Sym- posium on User Interface Software and Technology (V...

    2021

  2. [11]

    Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  3. [12]

    Jeremy Chu, Dongsheng An, Yan Ma, Wenzhe Cui, Shumin Zhai, Xianfeng David Gu, and Xiaojun Bi. 2023. WordGesture-GAN: Modeling Word-Gesture Movement with Generative Adversarial Network. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Ger...

    2023

  4. [13]

    Andrew Cohen, Ervin Teng, Vincent-Pierre Berges, Ruo-Ping Dong, Hunter Henry, Marwan Mattar, Alexander Zook, and Sujoy Ganguly. 2021. On the use and misuse of absorbing states in multi-agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05992 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Niraj Ramesh Dayama, Kashyap Todi, Taru Saarelainen, and Antti Oulasvirta

  6. [15]

    Barrett Ens, Eyal Ofek, Neil Bruce, and Pourang Irani. 2015. Spatial Constancy of Surface-Embedded Layouts across Multiple Environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Los Angeles, California, USA) (SUI ’15). Association for Computing Mach...

    2015

  7. [16]

    João Marcelo Evangelista Belo, Anna Maria Feit, Tiare Feuchtner, and Kaj Grøn- bæk. 2021. XRgonomics: Facilitating the Creation of Ergonomic 3D Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association ...

    2021

  8. [18]

    Fayjie, Sabir Hossain, Doukhi Oualid, and Deok-Jin Lee

    Abdur R. Fayjie, Sabir Hossain, Doukhi Oualid, and Deok-Jin Lee. 2018. Driver- less Car: Autonomous Driving Using Deep Reinforcement Learning in Urban Environment. In 2018 15th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR) . 896–901. https://doi.org/10.1109/URAI.2018.8441797

    2018

  9. [19]

    Paul M Fitts. 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of experimental psychology 47, 6 (1954), 381

    1954

  10. [21]

    Jens Grubert, Tobias Langlotz, Stefanie Zollmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2017. Towards Pervasive Augmented Reality: Context-Awareness in Augmented Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 6 (2017), 1706–1724. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2543720

    2017

  11. [22]

    Violet Yinuo Han, Hyunsung Cho, Kiyosu Maeda, Alexandra Ion, and David Lindlbauer. 2023. BlendMR: A Computational Method to Create Ambient Mixed Reality Interfaces. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, ISS, Article 436 (nov 2023), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626472

    2023 doi

  12. [23]

    Donald Joseph Hejna III and Dorsa Sadigh. 2023. Few-shot preference learning for human-in-the-loop rl. In Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2014–2025

    2023

  13. [24]

    William E Hick. 1952. On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of experimental psychology 4, 1 (1952), 11–26

    1952

  14. [25]

    Christoph Albert Johns, João Marcelo Evangelista Belo, Anna Maria Feit, Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose, and Ken Pfeuffer. 2023. Towards Flexible and Robust User Interface Adaptations With Multiple Objectives. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Softw...

    2023

  15. [26]

    Christoph Albert Johns, João Marcelo Evangelista Belo, Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose, and Ken Pfeuffer. 2023. Pareto Optimal Layouts for Adaptive Mixed Reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23)...

    2023

  16. [27]

    Arthur Juliani, Vincent-Pierre Berges, Ervin Teng, Andrew Cohen, Jonathan Harper, Chris Elion, Chris Goy, Yuan Gao, Hunter Henry, Marwan Mattar, and Danny Lange. 2020. Unity: A general platform for intelligent agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02627 (2020). https://arxiv.org/p...

    2020 arXiv

  17. [28]

    Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Babaeizadeh, Piotr Milos, Blazej Osinski, Roy H Campbell, Konrad Czechowski, Dumitru Erhan, Chelsea Finn, Piotr Kozakowski, Sergey Levine, et al. 2019. Model-based reinforcement learning for atari. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00374 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  18. [29]

    Andrew Bagnell, and Jan Peters

    Jens Kober, J. Andrew Bagnell, and Jan Peters. 2013. Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey. The International Journal of Robotics Re- search 32, 11 (2013), 1238–1274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364913495721 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364913495721

    2013 doi

  19. [30]

    Eduard Gröller, and Hsiang-Yun Wu

    Thomas Köppel, M. Eduard Gröller, and Hsiang-Yun Wu. 2021. Context- Responsive Labeling in Augmented Reality. In2021 IEEE 14th Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis). 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/PacificVis52677.2021. 00020

    2021

  20. [31]

    David Lindlbauer. 2022. The Future of Mixed Reality is Adaptive. XRDS 29, 1 (oct 2022), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3558191

    2022 doi

  21. [32]

    David Lindlbauer, Anna Maria Feit, and Otmar Hilliges. 2019. Context-Aware Online Adaptation of Mixed Reality Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (New Orleans, LA, USA) (UIST ’19). Association for Computing Mach...

    2019

  22. [33]

    Ryan Lowe, Yi I Wu, Aviv Tamar, Jean Harb, OpenAI Pieter Abbeel, and Igor Mordatch. 2017. Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  23. [34]

    Feiyu Lu and Yan Xu. 2022. Exploring Spatial UI Transition Mechanisms with Head-Worn Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, A...

    2022

  24. [35]

    Azalia Mirhoseini, Anna Goldie, Mustafa Yazgan, Joe Jiang, Ebrahim Songhori, Shen Wang, Young-Joon Lee, Eric Johnson, Omkar Pathak, Sungmin Bae, et al

  25. [36]

    Jason Orlosky, Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, Takumi Toyama, and Daniel Sonntag. 2015. Halo Content: Context-Aware Viewspace Management for Non-Invasive Aug- mented Reality. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (IUI ’15)...

    2015

  26. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10746 (2020)

    Chip placement with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10746 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  27. [38]

    Quentin Roy, Futian Zhang, and Daniel Vogel. 2019. Automation Accuracy Is Good, but High Controllability May Be Better. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yo...

    2019

  28. [39]

    Antti Oulasvirta, Niraj Ramesh Dayama, Morteza Shiripour, Maximilian John, and Andreas Karrenbauer. 2020. Combinatorial Optimization of Graphical User Interface Designs. Proc. IEEE 108, 3 (2020), 434–464. https://doi.org/10.1109/ JPROC.2020.2969687

    2020

  29. [40]

    Michael Hunter Shumin Zhai and Barton A. Smith. 2002. Perfor- mance Optimization of Virtual Keyboards. Human–Computer Interaction 17, 2-3 (2002), 229–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2002.9667315 arXiv:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07370024.2002.9667315

    2002

  30. [41]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov

  31. [42]

    Markus Tatzgern, Denis Kalkofen, Raphael Grasset, and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2014. Hedgehog labeling: View management techniques for external labels in 3D space. In 2014 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR). 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2014.6802046

    2014

  32. [43]

    Kashyap Todi, Gilles Bailly, Luis Leiva, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2021. Adapting User Interfaces with Model-Based Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machine...

    2021

  33. [44]

    Julian Straub, Thomas Whelan, Lingni Ma, Yufan Chen, Erik Wijmans, Simon Green, Jakob J Engel, Raul Mur-Artal, Carl Ren, Shobhit Verma, et al. 2019. The Replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05797 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  34. [45]

    Wilson, and Hrvoje Benko

    Robert Xiao, Julia Schwarz, Nick Throm, Andrew D. Wilson, and Hrvoje Benko

  35. [46]

    Jonker, and Aakar Gupta

    Difeng Yu, Ruta Desai, Ting Zhang, Hrvoje Benko, Tanya R. Jonker, and Aakar Gupta. 2022. Optimizing the Timing of Intelligent Suggestion in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA) (UIST ’22). As...

    2022

  36. [47]

    Kashyap Todi, Daryl Weir, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2016. Sketchplore: Sketch and Explore with a Layout Optimiser. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) (DIS ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2016

  37. [51]

    Yi Zhang, Ping Sun, Yuhan Yin, Lin Lin, and Xuesong Wang. 2018. Human- like Autonomous Vehicle Speed Control by Deep Reinforcement Learning with Double Q-Learning. In 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . 1251–1256. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2018.8500630 7 APPENDIX...

    2018

  38. [2017]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  39. [2018]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1653–1660

    MRTouch: Adding Touch Input to Head-Mounted Mixed Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1653–1660. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2794222

    2018

  40. [2020]

    InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20)

    GRIDS: Interactive Layout Design with Integer Programming. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376553

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.