WinSyn: A High Resolution Testbed for Synthetic Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present WinSyn, a unique dataset and testbed for cre-ating high-quality synthetic data with procedural modeling techniques. The dataset contains high-resolution pho-tographs of windows, selected from locations around the world, with 89,318 individual window crops showcasing diverse geometric and material characteristics. We evaluate a procedural model by training semantic segmentation networks on both synthetic and real images and then comparing their performances on a shared test set of real images. Specifically, we measure the difference in mean Intersection over Union (mIoU) and determine the effective number of real images to match synthetic data's training performance. We design a baseline procedural model as a benchmark and provide 21,290 synthetically generated images. By tuning the procedural model, key factors are identified which significantly influence the model's fidelity in replicating real-world scenarios. Importantly, we highlight the challenge of procedural modeling using current techniques, especially in their ability to replicate the spatial semantics of real-world scenarios. This insight is critical because of the potential of procedural models to bridge to hidden scene aspects such as depth, reflectivity, material properties, and lighting conditions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".