Geometry-based symbol spotting in born-digital architectural floor plans
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 describe a method for symbol spotting in born-digital architectural floor plans, which are a particularly challenging application domain of graphics recognition. We propose a hybrid method that capitalizes on strengths of both vector-based and pixel-based symbol spotting techniques. In the description phase, the salient geometric constituents of a symbol are extracted by a variety of vectorization techniques, including a proposed voting-based algorithm for finding partial ellipses. This enables us to better handle local shape irregularities and boundary discontinuities, as well as partial occlusion and overlap. In the matching phase, the spatial relationship between the geometric primitives is encoded via a primitive-aware proximity graph. A statistical approach is then used to rapidly yield a coarse localization of symbols within the plan. Localization is further refined with a pixel-based step implementing a modified cross-correlation function. Experimental results on the public SESYD synthetic dataset demonstrate that our approach clearly outperforms other popular symbol spotting approaches. Moreover, our approach yields promising results on real-world images, which are significantly more challenging in terms of overlap, occlusion, and presence of non-symbolic graphical data.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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