Bibliographic record
Abstract
We facilitate the creation of 3D-looking shaded production drawings from concept sketches. The key to our approach is a class of commonly used construction curves known as cross-sections , that function as an aid to both sketch creation and viewer understanding of the depicted 3D shape. In particular, intersections of these curves, or cross-hairs , convey valuable 3D information, that viewers compose into a mental model of the overall sketch. We use the artist-drawn cross-sections to automatically infer the 3D normals across the sketch, enabling 3D-like rendering. The technical contribution of our work is twofold. First, we distill artistic guidelines for drawing cross-sections and insights from perception literature to introduce an explicit mathematical formulation of the relationships between cross-section curves and the geometry they aim to convey. We then use these relationships to develop an algorithm for estimating a normal field from cross-section curve networks and other curves present in concept sketches. We validate our formulation and algorithm through a user study and a ground truth normal comparison. As demonstrated by the examples throughout the paper, these contributions enable us to shade a wide range of concept sketches with a variety of rendering styles.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.011 |
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".