Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sketches are a powerful and natural form of communication and are used in numerous systems for modelling, animation, shape retrieval, and editing. Despite their popularity, rough sketches — whether raster or vector, 2D or 3D — are often too complex and imprecise to be used directly and thus need special processing. For instance, many downstream applications, such as shape reconstruction, have strict requirements for cleanliness and accuracy of the input sketch. Alternatively, if a drawing is the final result, users might want to further process the sketch through tasks such as vectorization, beautification, cleanup, flat colorization, and more. In this state‐of‐the‐art report, we identify core geometrical and topological challenges shared by many processing methods, such as identifying endpoints, strokes, and junctions. Building upon that analysis, we then survey sketch processing methods in each task category. Furthermore, we outline the commonly used sketch datasets and promising avenues for future research in sketch processing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.018 |
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".