Diagrams Based on Structured Object Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most diagrams, particularly those used in software engineering, are line drawings consisting of nodes drawn as rectangles or circles, and edges drawn as lines linking them. In the present paper we review some of the literature on human perception to develop guidelines for effective diagram drawing. Particular attention is paid to structural object recognition theory. According to this theory as objects are perceived they are decomposed into 3D set of primitives called geons, together with the skeleton structure connecting them. We present a set of guidelines for drawing variations on node-link diagrams using geon-like primitives, and provide some examples. Results from three experiments are reported that evaluate 3D geon diagrams in comparison with 2D UML (Unified Modeling Language) diagrams. The first experiment measures the time and accuracy for a subject to recognize a sub-structure of a diagram represented either using geon primitives or UML primitives. The second and third experiments compare the accuracy of recalling geon vs. UML diagrams. The results of these experiments show that geon diagrams can be visually analyzed more rapidly, with fewer errors, and can be remembered better in comparison with equivalent UML diagrams.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".