Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimalist object representations or shape-proxies that spark and inspire human perception of shape remain an incompletely understood, yet powerful aspect of visual communication. We explore the use of planar sections, i.e., the contours of intersection of planes with a 3D object, for creating shape abstractions, motivated by their popularity in art and engineering. We first perform a user study to show that humans do define consistent and similar planar section proxies for common objects. Interestingly, we observe a strong correlation between user-defined planes and geometric features of objects. Further we show that the problem of finding the minimum set of planes that capture a set of 3D geometric shape features is both NP-hard and not always the proxy a user would pick. Guided by the principles inferred from our user study, we present an algorithm that progressively selects planes to maximize feature coverage, which in turn influence the selection of subsequent planes. The algorithmic framework easily incorporates various shape features, while their relative importance values are computed and validated from the user study data. We use our algorithm to compute planar slices for various objects, validate their utility towards object abstraction using a second user study, and conclude showing the potential applications of the extracted planar slice shape proxies.
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 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) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".