Curve Style Analysis in a Set of Shapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The word ‘style’ can be interpreted in so many different ways in so many different contexts. To provide a general analysis and understanding of styles is a highly challenging problem. We pose the open question ‘how to extract styles from geometric shapes?’ and address one instance of the problem. Specifically, we present an unsupervised algorithm for identifying curve styles in a set of shapes. In our setting, a curve style is explicitly represented by a mode of curve features appearing along the 2D silhouettes of the shapes in the set. Unlike previous attempts, we do not rely on any preconceived conceptual characterisations, for example, via specific shape descriptors, to define what is or is not a style. Our definition of styles is data‐dependent; it depends on the input set but we do not require computing a shape correspondence across the set. We provide an operational definition of curve styles which focuses on separating curve features that represent styles from curve features that are content revealing. To this end, we develop a novel formulation and associated algorithm for style‐content separation. The analysis is based on a feature‐shape association matrix (FSM) whose rows correspond to modes of curve features, columns to shapes in the set, and each entry expresses the extent a feature mode is present in a shape. We make several assumptions to drive style‐content separation which only involve properties of, and relations between, rows of the FSM. Computationally, our algorithm only requires row‐wise correlation analysis in the FSM and a heuristic solution of an instance of the set cover problem. Results are demonstrated on several data sets showing the identification of curve styles. We also develop and demonstrate several style‐related applications including style exaggeration, removal, blending, and style transfer for 2D shape synthesis .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".