SketchSoup: Exploratory Ideation Using Design Sketches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A hallmark of early stage design is a number of quick‐and‐dirty sketches capturing design inspirations, model variations and alternate viewpoints of a visual concept. We present SketchSoup, a workflow that allows designers to explore the design space induced by such sketches. We take an unstructured collection of drawings as input, along with a small number of user‐provided correspondences as input. We register them using a multi‐image matching algorithm, and present them as a 2D interpolation space. By morphing sketches in this space, our approach produces plausible visualizations of shape and viewpoint variations despite the presence of sketch distortions that would prevent standard camera calibration and 3D reconstruction. In addition, our interpolated sketches can serve as inspiration for further drawings, which feed back into the design space as additional image inputs. SketchSoup thus fills a significant gap in the early ideation stage of conceptual design by allowing designers to make better informed choices before proceeding to more expensive 3D modelling and prototyping. From a technical standpoint, we describe an end‐to‐end system that judiciously combines and adapts various image processing techniques to the drawing domain—where the images are dominated not by colour, shading and texture, but by sketchy stroke contours.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.007 |
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".