In a previous mini-series of blog posts (see here, here, here, and here), I have introduced a small data set of 60 line drawings complemented with pairwise shape similarity ratings and analyzed this data set in the form of conceptual similarity spaces. Today, I will start a new mini-series about learning a mapping from images into these similarity spaces, following up on my prior work on the NOUN dataset (see here and here).
Since this is going to be my last blog post for this year, I’m going to use it for reflecting a bit on my academic life this year and for talking a bit about my plans for 2021.
This post will be the last one in my mini-series “A Similarity Space for Shapes” about joint work with Margit Scheibel. So far, I have described the overall data set, the correlation between distances and dissimilarities, and the well-shapedness of conceptual regions. Today, I will finally take a look at interpretable directions in this similarity space.
Today, I would like to continue my little series about recent joint work with Margit Scheibel on a psychologically grounded similarity space for shapes. In my first post, I outlined the data set we worked with, and in my second post, we investigated how well the dissimilarity ratings are reflected by distances in the similarity spaces. Today, I’m going to use the categories from our data set to analyze whether conceptual regions are well-formed.
In one of my last blog posts, I have introduced a data set of shapes which I use to extract similarity spaces for the shape domain. As stated at the end of that blog post, I want to analyze these similarity spaces based on three predictions of the conceptual spaces framework: The representation of dissimilarities as distances, the presence of small, non-overlapping convex regions, and the presence of interpretable directions. Today, I will focus on the first of these predictions. More specifically, we will compute the correlation between distances in the MDS-spaces to the original dissimilarities and compare this to three baselines. This will help us to see how efficiently the similarity spaces represent shape similarity.