Materials In Paintings (MIP): An interdisciplinary dataset for perception, art history, and computer vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we capture and explore the painterly depictions of materials to enable the study of depiction and perception of materials through the artists' eye. We annotated a dataset of 19k paintings with 200k+ bounding boxes from which polygon segments were automatically extracted. Each bounding box was assigned a coarse material label (e.g., fabric) and half was also assigned a fine-grained label (e.g., velvety, silky). The dataset in its entirety is available for browsing and downloading at materialsinpaintings.tudelft.nl. We demonstrate the cross-disciplinary utility of our dataset by presenting novel findings across human perception, art history and, computer vision. Our experiments include a demonstration of how painters create convincing depictions using a stylized approach. We further provide an analysis of the spatial and probabilistic distributions of materials depicted in paintings, in which we for example show that strong patterns exists for material presence and location. Furthermore, we demonstrate how paintings could be used to build more robust computer vision classifiers by learning a more perceptually relevant feature representation. Additionally, we demonstrate that training classifiers on paintings could be used to uncover hidden perceptual cues by visualizing the features used by the classifiers. We conclude that our dataset of painterly material depictions is a rich source for gaining insights into the depiction and perception of materials across multiple disciplines and hope that the release of this dataset will drive multidisciplinary research.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.014 |
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".