A Programmable Model for Designing Stationary 2D Arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a programmable method for designing stationary 2D arrangements for element textures, namely textures made of small geometric elements. These textures are ubiquitous in numerous applications of computer-aided illustration. Previous methods, whether they be example-based or layout-based, lack control and can produce a limited range of possible arrangements. Our approach targets technical artists who will design an arrangement by writing a script.These scripts are using three types of operators: partitioning operators for defining the broad-scale organization of the arrangement, mapping operators for controlling the local organization of elements, and merging operators for mixing different arrangements. These operators are designed so as to guarantee a stationary result meaning that the produced arrangements will always be repetitive. We show that this simple set of operators is sufficient to reach a much broader variety of arrangements than previous methods. Editing the script leads to predictable changes in the synthesized arrangement, which allows an easy iterative design of complex structures. Finally, our operator set is extensible and can be adapted to application-dependent needs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".