MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770212906 · doi:10.1145/3130800.3130841

Learning to group discrete graphical patterns

2017· article· en· W2770212906 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhaoliang Lun, Changqing Zou, Haibin Huang, Evangelos Kalogerakis, Ping Tan, Marie‐Paule Cani, Hao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceGranularityFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceElement (criminal law)Convolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Noise (video)Encoding (memory)Context (archaeology)Key (lock)Deep learningGroup (periodic table)Theoretical computer scienceMachine learningData miningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a deep learning approach for grouping discrete patterns common in graphical designs. Our approach is based on a convolutional neural network architecture that learns a grouping measure defined over a pair of pattern elements. Motivated by perceptual grouping principles, the key feature of our network is the encoding of element shape, context, symmetries, and structural arrangements. These element properties are all jointly considered and appropriately weighted in our grouping measure. To better align our measure with human perceptions for grouping, we train our network on a large, human-annotated dataset of pattern groupings consisting of patterns at varying granularity levels, with rich element relations and varieties, and tempered with noise and other data imperfections. Experimental results demonstrate that our deep-learned measure leads to robust grouping results.

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 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 score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207