Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the arts and sciences, as well as in our daily lives, symmetry has made a profound and lasting impact. Likewise, a computational treatment of symmetry and group theory (the ultimate mathematical formalization of symmetry) has the potential to play an important role in computational sciences. Though the term computational symmetry was formally defined a decade ago by the first author, referring to algorithmic treatment of symmetries, seeking symmetry from digital data has been attempted for over four decades. Computational symmetry on real world data turns out to be challenging enough that, after decades of effort, a fully automated symmetry–savvy system remains elusive for real world applications. The recent resurging interests in computational symmetry for computer vision and computer graphics applications have shown promising results. Recognizing the fundamental relevance and potential power that computational symmetry affords, we offer this survey to the computer vision and computer graphics communities. This survey provides a succinct summary of the relevant mathematical theory, a historic perspective of some important symmetry-related ideas, a partial yet timely report on the state of the arts symmetry detection algorithms along with its first quantitative benchmark, a diverse set of real world applications, suggestions for future directions and a comprehensive reference list.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".