skip to main content
10.1145/2487381.2487383acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesegConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Supervised machine learning for grouping sketch diagram strokes

Published:19 July 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Grouping of strokes into semantically meaningful diagram elements is a difficult problem. Yet such grouping is needed if truly natural sketching is to be supported in intelligent sketch tools. Using a machine learning approach, we propose a number of new paired-stroke features for grouping and evaluate the suitability of a range of algorithms. Our evaluation shows the new features and algorithms produce promising results that are statistically better than the existing machine learning grouper.

References

  1. Alvarado, C. and R. Davis. 2007. Dynamically constructed Bayes nets for multi-domain sketch understanding. ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 courses, ACM. 33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alvarado, C. and M. Lazzareschi. 2007. Properties of Real World Digital Logic Diagrams. 1st International Workshop on Pen-based Learning Technologies. 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Arnheim, R. 1997. Visual Thinking. Berkeley, University of California Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Gal, I. 2007. Bayesian Networks. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability. F. Ruggeri, F. Faltin and R. Kenett. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Blagojevic, R., B. Plimmer, J. C. Grundy and Y. Wang. 2011. Using data mining for digital ink recognition: Dividing text and shapes in sketched diagrams. Computers & Graphics 35(5): 976--991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Breiman, L. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45(1): 5--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Chang, S. H.-H., R. Blagojevic and B. Plimmer. 2012. RATA.Gesture: A Gesture Recognizer Developed using Data Mining. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AI EDAM) 26(3): 351--366. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Druin, A., J. Montemayor, J. Hendler, B. McAlister, A. Boltman, E. Fiterman, A. Plaisant, A. Kruskal, H. Olsen, I. Revett, T. P. Schwenn, L. Sumida and R. Wagner. 1999. Designing PETS: a personal electronic teller of stories. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, ACM. 326--329. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fonseca, M. J., C. e. Pimentel and J. A. Jorge. 2002. CALI: An Online Scribble Recogniser for Calligraphic Interfaces. AAAI Spring Symposium on Sketch Understanding, IEEE. 51--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman, J., T. Hastie and R. Tibshirani. 1998. Additive Logistic Regression: a Statistical View of Boosting. The Annals of Statistics 28(2): 337--407.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Gennari, L., L. B. Kara, T. F. Stahovich and K. Shimadaa. 2005. Combining Geometry and Domain Knowledge to Interpret Hand-Drawn Diagrams. Computers & Graphics 29(4): 547--562. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hall, M., E. Frank, G. Holmes, B. Pfahringer, P. Reutemann and I. H. Witten. 2009. The WEKA data mining software: An update. SIGKDD Explorations 11(1): 10--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hammond, T. and B. Paulson. 2011. Recognizing sketched multistroke primitives. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 1(1): 1--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Holmes, G., B. Pfahringer, R. Kirkby, E. Frank and M. Hall. 2001. Multiclass alternating decision trees. ECML: 161--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Hse, H. and A. R. Newton. 2004. Recognition and Beautification of Multi-Stroke Symbols in Digital Ink. AAAI Fall Symposium Series, Oct. 2004. pp. 78--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kanizsa, G. 1979. Organization in vision: essays on gestalt perception. Praeger.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kara, L. B. and T. F. Stahovich. 2004. Hierarchical Parsing and Recognition of HandSketched Diagrams. UIST '04, ACM Press. 13--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ouyang, T. and R. Davis. 2009. Learning from Neighboring Strokes: Combining Appearance and Context for Multi-Domain Sketch Recognition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22: 1401--1409.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Paulson, B. and T. Hammond. 2008. PaleoSketch: Accurate Primitive Sketch Recognition and Beautification. Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI '08), ACM Press. 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Peterson, E., T. Stahovich, E. Doi and C. Alvarado. 2010. Grouping Strokes into Shapes in Hand-Drawn Diagrams. Proc. of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-10). 974--979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Plimmer, B., H. Purchase and H. Y. Yang. 2010. SketchNode: Intelligent sketching support and formal diagramming. OZCHI 2010, ACM. 136--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Rubine, D. H. 1991. Specifying gestures by example. Proceedings of Siggraph '91, ACM. 329--337. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Saund, E., D. Fleet, D. Larner and J. Mahoney. 2003. Perceptually-Supported Image Editing of Text and Graphics. User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '03), ACM. pp. 183--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Saund, E. and T. P. Moran. 1994. A perceptually-supported sketch editor. Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, ACM. 175--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Saund;, E., J. Mahoney;, D. Fleet;, D. Larner; and E. Lank. 2002. Perceptual Organization as a Foundation for Intelligent Sketch Editing. AAAI Spring Symposium on Sketch Understanding, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. 118--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Shilman, M. and P. Viola. 2004. Spatial recognition and grouping of text and graphics. Eurographics Workshop on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling. 91--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Shilman, M., Z. Wei;, S. Raghupathy;, P. Simard and D. Jones. 2003. Discerning structure from freeform handwritten notes. Document Analysis and Recognition. 60--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Wobbrock, J. O., A. D. Wilson and Y. Li. 2007. Gestures without libraries, toolkits or training: a $1 recognizer for user interface prototypes. User interface software and technology, ACM. 159--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Supervised machine learning for grouping sketch diagram strokes

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SBIM '13: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling
        July 2013
        80 pages
        ISBN:9781450322058
        DOI:10.1145/2487381

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 19 July 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate20of36submissions,56%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader