MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065110175 · doi:10.1145/2766933

Learning shape placements by example

2015· article· en· W2065110175 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBounding overwatchMinimum bounding boxFeature (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionProbabilistic logicSession (web analytics)Simple (philosophy)Computer graphics (images)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method to learn and propagate shape placements in 2D polygonal scenes from a few examples provided by a user. The placement of a shape is modeled as an oriented bounding box. Simple geometric relationships between this bounding box and nearby scene polygons define a feature set for the placement. The feature sets of all example placements are then used to learn a probabilistic model over all possible placements and scenes. With this model, we can generate a new set of placements with similar geometric relationships in any given scene. We introduce extensions that enable propagation and generation of shapes in 3D scenes, as well as the application of a learned modeling session to large scenes without additional user interaction. These concepts allow us to generate complex scenes with thousands of objects with relatively little user interaction.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it