Capturing Non-Linear Human Perspective in Line Drawings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artist-drawn sketches only loosely conform to analytical models of perspective projection; the deviation of human-drawn perspective from analytical perspective models is persistent and well documented, but has yet to be algorithmically replicated. We encode this deviation between human and analytic perspectives as a continuous function in 3D space and develop a method to learn it. We seek deviation functions that (i) mimic artist deviation on our training data; (ii) generalize to other shapes; (iii) are consistent across different views of the same shape; and (iv) produce outputs that appear human-drawn. The natural data for learning this deviation is pairs of artist sketches of 3D shapes and best-matching analytical camera views of the same shapes. However, a core challenge in learning perspective deviation is the heterogeneity of human drawing choices, combined with relative data paucity (the datasets we rely on have only a few dozen training pairs). We sidestep this challenge by learning perspective deviation from an individual pair of an artist sketch of a 3D shape and the contours of the same shape rendered from a best-matching analytical camera view. We first match contours of the depicted shape to artist strokes, then learn a spatially continuous local perspective deviation function that modifies the camera perspective projecting the contours to their corresponding strokes. This function retains key geometric properties that artists strive to preserve when depicting 3D content, thus satisfying (i) and (iv) above. We generalize our method to alternative shapes and views (ii,iii) via a self-augmentation approach that algorithmically generates training data for nearby views, and enforces spatial smoothness and consistency across all views. We compare our results to potential alternatives, demonstrating the superiority of the proposed approach. Code and models will be released upon acceptance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".