Interesting paper for someone fiddling with implicit surfaces, but it's gonna take a little while to digest it. Also there's no examples of resulting UV maps used in this (while on-model painting is simplified, afaik classically artists still preferred to get clearly delineated maps to modify in regular painting software even if stuff like Substance painter seems to have shifted that).

Implicit surface modelling tools are still evolving quickly, and one point that seems overlooked is how this would tie with authoring tools (since this is about a fairly raw numeric algorithm solution).

Post-modelling it should hold up, but would the maps retain similarity (or enable transferability) if the implicit model structure changes?

Imagine 2 disjoint spheres in space, the user drags them together, would this algorithm want to merge the UV mapping of them if they are smoothly joined? (no sharp creases).

What a great paper. This paper is an example of why I find computer graphics to be the most interesting subset of computer science.

Related question: I'm coding a demo (as in "demoscene") and want to displace a plane SDF (think e.g. a heightmap) for raymarching.

From the little maths I know, that is no longer an SDF because (as the submission paper points) it no longer satisfies the Eikonal equation. My surface is still at f(x,y,z) = 0 but the rest of the field is completely messed up. This produces some visible discontinuities on the plane on larger slopes.

Is there any way to fix this or am I SOL?