Given that this clearly builds on WFC, the “attribution” in the Related Work section seems rather understated to me:
The “Most Constrained Placement with Fuzzy Arc Consistency” solver is similar to the Wave Function Collapse project by @ExUtumno.
To make sure I’m not misreading the situation, I went and checked the commit log and, indeed, the first commit implementing a WFC-like algorithm - 01bc61 - has the commit message
holy shit, wave function collapse works.
The stuff before 01bc61 is from 2015 and implements something else.
In light of this, some sort of reference – say, “there’s this popular algorithm called WFC that I’m using as the starting point” – should be in the intro sentence of the article.
On the WaveFunctionCollapse page sgreben links, this paper is referenced which formalizes WFC (and the OP) as a constraint satisfaction problem (more rigorously than in the linked article as well).
Cool find Yogthos and sgreben, thanks for sharing.
Given that this clearly builds on WFC, the “attribution” in the Related Work section seems rather understated to me:
To make sure I’m not misreading the situation, I went and checked the commit log and, indeed, the first commit implementing a WFC-like algorithm - 01bc61 - has the commit message
The stuff before
01bc61is from 2015 and implements something else.In light of this, some sort of reference – say, “there’s this popular algorithm called WFC that I’m using as the starting point” – should be in the intro sentence of the article.
On the WaveFunctionCollapse page sgreben links, this paper is referenced which formalizes WFC (and the OP) as a constraint satisfaction problem (more rigorously than in the linked article as well).
Cool find Yogthos and sgreben, thanks for sharing.
This writing can definitely benefit from some maths to explain the ideas more concretely.