Similarity Index Based Approach for Identifying Similar Grotto Statues to Support Virtual Restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grottoes, with caves and statues, are an important part of immovable heritage. Statues in a particular grotto setting are often similar in geometric form and artistic style, and identifying the similarity between these statues can help provide important references for value recognition, condition assessment, repair, and the virtual restoration of statues. Traditionally, such reference information mainly depended on expert empirical judgment, which is highly subjective, lacks quantitative analysis, and cannot provide effective scientific support for the virtual restoration of grotto statues. This paper presents a similarity index based approach for identifying similarities between grotto statues by studying 11 small Buddhist statues carved on the 18th cave in the Yungang Grottoes, located in Datong, China. The similarity index is determined according to the hash values calculated based on the pHash method using the orthophoto images of Buddhist statues to identify similar statues. Similar feature points between the identified statues are then matched using the Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) operator to support the repair and reconstruction of damaged statues. The experimental results show that the variation of similarity index values confirms the visual inspection of the statues’ appearance in the orthophotos. The additional analysis of three-dimensional (3D) point clouds also confirms that the similarity index based approach is accurate in the initial screening of similar grotto statues.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".