Interactive design of probability density functions for shape grammars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A shape grammar defines a procedural shape space containing a variety of models of the same class, e.g. buildings, trees, furniture, airplanes, bikes, etc. We present a framework that enables a user to interactively design a probability density function (pdf) over such a shape space and to sample models according to the designed pdf. First, we propose a user interface that enables a user to quickly provide preference scores for selected shapes and suggest sampling strategies to decide which models to present to the user to evaluate. Second, we propose a novel kernel function to encode the similarity between two procedural models. Third, we propose a framework to interpolate user preference scores by combining multiple techniques: function factorization, Gaussian process regression, autorelevance detection, and l 1 regularization. Fourth, we modify the original grammars to generate models with a pdf proportional to the user preference scores. Finally, we provide evaluations of our user interface and framework parameters and a comparison to other exploratory modeling techniques using modeling tasks in five example shape spaces: furniture, low-rise buildings, skyscrapers, airplanes, and vegetation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".