StripMaker: Perception-driven Learned Vector Sketch Consolidation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artist sketches often use multiple overdrawn strokes to depict a single intended curve. Humans effortlessly mentally consolidate such sketches by detecting groups of overdrawn strokes and replacing them with the corresponding intended curves. While this mental process is near instantaneous, manually annotating or retracing sketches to communicate this intended mental image is highly time consuming; yet most sketch applications are not designed to handle overdrawing and can only operate on overdrawing-free, consolidated sketches. We propose StripMaker , a new and robust learning based method for automatic consolidation of raw vector sketches. We avoid the need for an unsustainably large manually annotated learning corpus by leveraging observations about artist workflow and perceptual cues viewers employ when mentally consolidating sketches. We train two perception-aware classifiers that assess the likelihood that a pair of stroke groups jointly depicts the same intended curve: our first classifier is purely local and only accounts for the properties of the evaluated strokes; our second classifier incorporates global context and is designed to operate on approximately consolidated sketches. We embed these classifiers within a consolidation framework that leverages artist workflow: we first process strokes in the order they were drawn and use our local classifier to arrive at an approximate consolidation output, then use the contextual classifier to refine this output and finalize the consolidated result. We validate StripMaker by comparing its results to manual consolidation outputs and algorithmic alternatives. StripMaker achieves comparable performance to manual consolidation. In a comparative study participants preferred our results by a 53% margin over those of the closest algorithmic alternative (67% versus 14%, other/neither 19%).
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".