Bibliographic record
Abstract
When creating line drawings, artists frequently depict intended curves using multiple, tightly clustered, or overdrawn, strokes. Given such sketches, human observers can readily envision these intended, aggregate , curves, and mentally assemble the artist's envisioned 2D imagery. Algorithmic stroke consolidation---replacement of overdrawn stroke clusters by corresponding aggregate curves---can benefit a range of sketch processing and sketch-based modeling applications which are designed to operate on consolidated, intended curves. We propose StrokeAggregator , a novel stroke consolidation method that significantly improves on the state of the art, and produces aggregate curve drawings validated to be consistent with viewer expectations. Our framework clusters strokes into groups that jointly define intended aggregate curves by leveraging principles derived from human perception research and observation of artistic practices. We employ these principles within a coarse-to-fine clustering method that starts with an initial clustering based on pairwise stroke compatibility analysis, and then refines it by analyzing interactions both within and in-between clusters of strokes. We facilitate this analysis by computing a common 1D parameterization for groups of strokes via common aggregate curve fitting. We demonstrate our method on a large range of line drawings, and validate its ability to generate consolidated drawings that are consistent with viewer perception via qualitative user evaluation, and comparisons to manually consolidated drawings and algorithmic alternatives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.022 |
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".