Perception-aware modeling and fabrication of digital drawing tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital drawing is becoming a favorite technique for many artists. It allows for quick swaps between different materials, reverting changes, and applying selective modifications to finished artwork. These features enable artists to be more efficient and creative. A significant disadvantage of digital drawing is poor haptic feedback. Artists are usually limited to one surface and a few different stylus nibs, and while they try to find a combination that suits their needs, this is typically challenging. In this work, we address this problem and propose a method for designing, evaluating, and optimizing different stylus designs. We begin with collecting a representative set of traditional drawing tools. We measure their physical properties and conduct a user experiment to build a perceptual space that encodes perceptually-relevant attributes of drawing materials. The space is optimized to both explain our experimental data and correlate it with measurable physical properties. To embed new drawing tool designs into the space without conducting additional experiments and measurements, we propose a new, data-driven simulation technique for characterizing stylus-surface interaction. We finally leverage the perceptual space, our simulation, and recent advancements in multi-material 3D printing to demonstrate the application of our system in the design of new digital drawing tools that mimic traditional drawing materials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".