Materials In Paintings (MIP): An interdisciplinary dataset for perception, art history, and computer vision
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
A painter is free to modify how components of a natural scene are depicted, which can lead to a perceptually convincing image of the distal world. This signals a major difference between photos and paintings: paintings are explicitly created for human perception. Studying these painterly depictions could be beneficial to a multidisciplinary audience. 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 label (e.g., fabric) and a fine-grained label (e.g., velvety, silky). We demonstrate the cross-disciplinary utility of our dataset by presenting novel findings across art history, human perception, and computer vision. Our experiments include analyzing the distribution of materials depicted in paintings, showing how painters create convincing depictions using a stylized approach, and demonstrating how paintings can be used to build more robust computer vision models. 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. The MIP dataset is freely accessible at https://materialsinpaintings.tudelft.nl
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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