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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a new framework for interior scene synthesis that combines a high-level relation graph representation with spatial prior neural networks. We observe that prior work on scene synthesis is divided into two camps: object-oriented approaches (which reason about the set of objects in a scene and their configurations) and space-oriented approaches (which reason about what objects occupy what regions of space). Our insight is that the object-oriented paradigm excels at high-level planning of how a room should be laid out, while the space-oriented paradigm performs well at instantiating a layout by placing objects in precise spatial configurations. With this in mind, we present PlanIT, a layout-generation framework that divides the problem into two distinct planning and instantiation phases. PlanIT represents the "plan" for a scene via a relation graph, encoding objects as nodes and spatial/semantic relationships between objects as edges. In the planning phase, it uses a deep graph convolutional generative model to synthesize relation graphs. In the instantiation phase, it uses image-based convolutional network modules to guide a search procedure that places objects into the scene in a manner consistent with the graph. By decomposing the problem in this way, PlanIT generates scenes of comparable quality to those generated by prior approaches (as judged by both people and learned classifiers), while also providing the modeling flexibility of the intermediate relationship graph representation. These graphs allow the system to support applications such as scene synthesis from a partial graph provided by a user.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it