Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Inkspire: Supporting Design Exploration with Generative AI through Analogical Sketching

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Inkspire claims a sketch-to-design-to-sketch loop with analogical inspiration helps designers explore more and avoid AI fixation.

desk verdict Solid systems paper with a confounded comparison: the workflow is new and the effects are large, but the specific claim about analogical sketching isn't uniquely supported by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18588 v1 pith:XUURMDJI submitted 2025-01-30 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CVcs.MM

David Chuan-En Lin , Hyeonsu B. Kang , Nikolas Martelaro , Aniket Kittur , Yan-Ying Chen , Matthew K. Hong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CVcs.MM
keywords generativeAIsketchingiterativedesignco-creativefixationanalogicalinspirationtext-to-imagemodelsexploration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the standard text-prompt-and-generate workflow of text-to-image tools nudges designers into design fixation, and that a sketch-driven loop can break that pattern. It introduces Inkspire, a prototype in which designers start from an abstract concept such as 'protectiveness,' receive concrete analogical inspirations (tortoise, armadillo, bunker), and then iterate with the AI stroke by stroke, with each new pen stroke producing a fresh design whose reduced-fidelity sketch scaffold is laid under the canvas. In a within-subjects study of twelve designers comparing Inkspire with a ControlNet baseline, participants rated Inkspire significantly higher on exploration, inspiration, controllability, communication, partnership, and attribution. The paper reads this as evidence that closing the sketch-to-design-to-sketch loop keeps designers co-creating with the model instead of fixating on a single thread. If the result holds, it suggests that interface design, not just model quality, is what determines whether generative AI expands or narrows the design space.

What carries the argument

Three coupled mechanisms carry the argument. First, analogical inspiration: an LLM prompted with chain-of-thought reasoning converts an abstract concept into ten visually concrete objects drawn from nature, architecture, and fashion, giving designers concept-level anchors without prompt engineering. Second, per-stroke generation with a dynamic guidance scale G(n)=7-4·0.$5^{{n/3}}$, which starts near 3 when the canvas is nearly empty and asymptotes at 7 as strokes accumulate, so ControlNet can interpret incomplete sketches and re-render after every pen stroke while keeping the seed fixed for continuity. Third, the Design2Sketch pipeline converts the high-fidelity generation into a scaffold via Scaffolding = Boundary(Seg(D)) ∩ SoftEdge(D): semantic segmentation boundaries are intersected with HED soft edges to keep only key structural lines, which are then shown as a tracing-paper-style underlay. The scaffold is the hinge of the loop—it is the mechanism that turns a 'too complete' output back into something malleable.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment that augments the ControlNet baseline with automatic per-stroke regeneration and sketch scaffolding but not the analogical inspiration panel would locate the source of the exploration gain. If that augmented baseline shows the same exploration and inspiration ratings as Inkspire, the central claim that analogical sketching drives the effect is falsified. Alternatively, an objective divergence measure—counting the number of structurally distinct concepts in the final designs produced by each condition—would test whether self-reported exploration translates into more varied outcomes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a complete feedback loop—sketch guides AI generation, AI output is abstracted back into a sketch scaffold, and the scaffold guides the next stroke—supports a more iterative, exploratory, and co-creative design workflow than the current practice of sketching a full image and handing it to a ControlNet model with a text prompt. The paper reports that the twelve participants rated Inkspire significantly higher than the baseline on inspiration (t(11)=3.44, p<0.01) and exploration (t(11)=3.94, p<0.01), as well as on controllability, communication, partnership, and attribution (all p<0.01). Interaction logs show Inkspire users sketching in short bursts with frequent generations, while baseline users drew long sequences and edited prompts incrementally; prompt semantic similarity was lower under Inkspire (BERTScore 0.51 vs. 0.76). The authors attribute these differences to three mechanisms: analogical inspiration that turns abstract briefs into concrete visual anchors, per-stroke regeneration with a dynamically increasing guidance scale that tolerates incomplete sketches, and sketch scaffolding that lets designers build on a generation without being fixated on its photorealistic finish.

Load-bearing premise

The baseline ControlNet condition differs from Inkspire on several dimensions at once—analogical inspirations, sketch scaffolding, per-stroke regeneration, and the dynamic guidance scale—so the reported benefits may stem from any subset of these differences rather than from the complete loop, and the paper does not include an ablation to isolate them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers can start ideation from a single abstract word and a single stroke rather than a fully specified prompt or sketch.
  • Per-stroke regeneration creates a turn-taking rhythm that makes the AI feel like a collaborator rather than a one-shot renderer.
  • The scaffolding underlay could be applied to other generative domains where high-fidelity outputs cause fixation.
  • The dynamic guidance scale provides a general recipe for making ControlNet-style models tolerate partial input.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the analogical menu is the driver, a prompt-based tool with analogies but no scaffolding might reproduce part of the exploration gain, suggesting a possible ablation.
  • The measured reduction in prompt editing and the lower BERTScore similarity suggest that the interface substitutes conceptual pivots for lexical tweaks; whether this produces objectively more novel final designs is not fully settled by self-reports.
  • The single-thread limitation noted in the paper implies the loop may benefit from parallel analogy branches, which the authors themselves flag as future work.
  • Beyond product design, the sketch-to-design-to-sketch loop could be adapted to architecture or fashion sketching if the analogical source domains are re-targeted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents Inkspire, a sketch-driven text-to-image tool that combines an analogical inspiration panel (LLM-generated concrete analogies for abstract concepts), a sketching canvas with per-stroke auto-regeneration using a dynamic guidance scale, and a Design2Sketch pipeline that converts AI-generated designs into sketch-style underlays. The authors report a within-subjects study with twelve participants comparing Inkspire to a ControlNet-based baseline, finding significantly higher self-reported exploration, inspiration, controllability, communication, partnership, and attribution, and concluding that Inkspire promotes a more iterative, exploratory, and co-creative workflow that helps designers overcome fixation.

Significance. If the results hold, Inkspire is a meaningful step toward reducing design fixation in T2I workflows, offering a concrete system with a novel Design2Sketch pipeline and a validated evaluation using standard questionnaires. The paper reports large effect sizes, transparently presents non-significant results, and grounds its design goals in a professional design team exchange. However, the significance rests on the strength of the comparative evidence, which is currently confounded by multiple simultaneous differences between the conditions; therefore the precise contribution of analogical sketching is not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.3, §6.1, §7.1] The central evaluation is a system-level comparison in which Inkspire differs from the baseline on at least four dimensions at once: the analogical inspiration menu, the sketch-scaffold underlay, automatic per-stroke regeneration with the dynamic guidance scale (Eq. 1), and the baseline's requirement to complete a full sketch before generating. The significant gains in exploration (t(11)=3.94) and inspiration (t(11)=3.44) could therefore be driven by the per-stroke feedback loop alone rather than by analogical sketching. Because the abstract and conclusion attribute the outcome to 'analogical sketching' and the sketch-to-design-to-sketch loop, this confound is load-bearing. Section 7.1 correctly lists ablation studies as future work, but the claims as written go beyond what the current comparison can establish. The authors should either narrow the central claim to the integrated system or add an analytic or experimental disaggregation (e.g., a condition without the analogy panel, or a baseline with per-stroke generation) to support the current wording.
  2. [§6.2.3] The logged sketching behavior reveals a strong asymmetry: baseline users averaged 59.8 strokes before generating, while Inkspire users averaged 17.3 strokes and interleaved one or a few strokes between generations. The baseline's full-sketch-before-generation requirement changes the cost of exploration, so the observed self-reported benefits may reflect this interaction economics rather than the value of analogies or scaffolds. To make the baseline a fair point of comparison, the authors need to justify that this requirement is representative of current practice, and ideally include a condition that gives ControlNet a comparable per-stroke interaction (as suggested in §7.1). Without such a control, the conclusion that analogical sketching is the active ingredient is not uniquely supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (1)] The dynamic guidance scale is a hand-selected formula; a brief sensitivity discussion or reference to tuning experiments would help readers understand why the constants were chosen.
  2. [§6.2.2] The BERTScore semantic-similarity comparison is reported as 'much lower' without a test statistic or p-value; a paired t-test or equivalent should be reported.
  3. [§6.2.3] The claim that participants drew fewer total strokes with Inkspire is not accompanied by a significance test; if the difference is not tested, it should be described as an observation only.
  4. [Table 1] There appear to be inconsistencies between the listed analogies and the 'Total' count for several participants (e.g., P1 lists seven items but reports six; P4 lists five items but reports four). Please check and correct.
  5. [§4.3, §2.2] There is a typo in §4.3 ('acheve' should be 'achieve') and a doubled 'and' in §2.2 ('LLMs and and analogical reasoning').
  6. [§3] The formative exchange session is described as a day-long session with seven designers, but no details on the protocol or analysis are provided; adding a brief description would strengthen the derivation of the design goals.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the user-study evaluation is an empirical comparison rather than a derivation from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive quantitative predictions from fitted parameters. Equation (1), the dynamic guidance scale G(n)=7-4*0.5^(n/3), is a hand-selected design rule for enabling per-stroke generation, and Equation (2), the Design2Sketch scaffolding, is a definitional composition of existing semantic segmentation and soft-edge extraction methods. Neither equation is calibrated to the study outcomes nor used to predict the reported exploration, inspiration, or collaboration ratings. The central evidence is a within-subjects empirical comparison against a ControlNet baseline, with the headline results reported as paired t-tests on self-report scales and logged interaction behavior. Those results are not reductions of outputs to inputs by construction. Self-citations such as BioSpark [39] and Jigsaw [51] appear in related-work, motivation, and future-work contexts, and are not invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or used to forbid alternative explanations. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 7.1 that Inkspire contains multiple features that could affect behavior and that ablation studies are future work; this is a confound/internal-validity limitation, not a circular derivation. Therefore the paper is self-contained with respect to circularity, and any concerns about the strength of the baseline belong under correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system is a composition of existing models and design choices. The only hand-set numeric parameters are the guidance-scale constants and the choice of analogy source domains. The axioms reflect assumptions about generalizability, the fixation-reduction mechanism, LLM reliability, statistical validity, and baseline fairness, all of which are either standard practice or explicitly acknowledged as open questions.

free parameters (2)
  • Guidance scale constants = G(n)=7-4*0.5^(n/3)
    Hand-chosen constants control how strongly the diffusion model adheres to the sketch as strokes accumulate. Selected by the authors, not fitted to data; affects generation behavior but not the statistical claim.
  • Source domains for analogies = nature, architecture, fashion
    The authors 'empirically found' these three domains produce interesting inspirations. This is a design choice not derived from data, affecting the inspiration menu.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The formative session with seven automotive designers yields design goals that generalize to the study participants and broader product designers.
    Section 3 distills challenges C1-C3 from one company's team; the study then measures outcomes related to those goals without re-validating generalizability.
  • domain assumption Lower-fidelity sketch scaffolds reduce design fixation, based on prior work.
    The Design2Sketch mechanism assumes that abstracting renders into sketch underlays will steer attention away from high-fidelity detail; this is borrowed from cited empirical work, not tested directly here.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 produces useful, unbiased analogical inspirations suitable for product design.
    The inspiration generation relies on LLM outputs without systematic quality evaluation or bias checks.
  • standard math Parametric paired t-tests are valid for 7-point Likert questionnaire data with n=12.
    The paper applies t-tests without normality checks; this is conventional in HCI but debatable.
  • domain assumption The baseline ControlNet interface is a fair comparison point.
    Section 5 and Figure 14 describe the baseline; the paper acknowledges in Section 7.1 that ablation studies would be needed to isolate features.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inkspire: Supporting Design Exploration with Generative AI through Analogical Sketching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUURMDJI

@misc{pith2026250118588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inkspire: Supporting Design Exploration with Generative AI through Analogical Sketching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUURMDJI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18588}
}
read the original abstract

With recent advancements in the capabilities of Text-to-Image (T2I) AI models, product designers have begun experimenting with them in their work. However, T2I models struggle to interpret abstract language and the current user experience of T2I tools can induce design fixation rather than a more iterative, exploratory process. To address these challenges, we developed Inkspire, a sketch-driven tool that supports designers in prototyping product design concepts with analogical inspirations and a complete sketch-to-design-to-sketch feedback loop. To inform the design of Inkspire, we conducted an exchange session with designers and distilled design goals for improving T2I interactions. In a within-subjects study comparing Inkspire to ControlNet, we found that Inkspire supported designers with more inspiration and exploration of design ideas, and improved aspects of the co-creative process by allowing designers to effectively grasp the current state of the AI to guide it towards novel design intentions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Inkspire interface. The designer may use the Analogical Panel (a) to ideate analogical inspirations for abstract [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sketch2Design pipeline, including (a) inspiration generation with LLMs, (b) sketch-guided design generation, and (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of our Design2Sketch method with potential alternative methods, such as edge detection, manga line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Design2Sketch pipeline, including (a) semantic segmentation, (b) soft edge extraction, and (c) computing an intersection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results on creativity measured with the Creativity Support Index (CSI) [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example designs created by participants using Inkspire for the design tasks of designing a fluid chair and a serene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results on human-AI collaboration measured with Human-Machine Collaboration Questions from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example user iterations with Inkspire (top section) vs. the baseline condition (bottom section). For each section, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results on sketching statistics, including total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example user interaction log. We observe that, using Inkspire, the user started by ideating several analogical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results on design quality (left) and usage experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Given a scaffold, the user may choose to build on it (by tracing it) or steer the AI towards a different direction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Complete participant usage logs when using Inkspire vs. the baseline. Please see Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The baseline interface adopts a similar layout as Inkspire, but without analogical inspirations, scaffolding sketch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Canvas3D: Empowering Precise Spatial Control for Image Generation with Constraints from a 3D Virtual Canvas

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Canvas3D lets users arrange objects in a 3D canvas generated from a text prompt, then feeds depth, skeleton, and lighting constraints to diffusion models to produce images that match the layout.

  2. GenTune: Toward Traceable Prompts to Improve Controllability of Image Refinement in Environment Design

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    GenTune improves AI image refinement by tracing image regions back to prompt labels and allowing element-level, semantic-guided edits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2022. Upwork. Retrieved August 15, 2022 from https://www.upwork.com/

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    AI is plundering the imagination and replacing it with a slot machine

    2024. AI is plundering the imagination and replacing it with a slot machine . Retrieved March 24, 2024 from https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/ai-is-plundering- the-imagination-and-replacing-it-with-a-slot-machine/

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    How to Learn to Draw by Tracing

    2024. How to Learn to Draw by Tracing . Retrieved February 16, 2024 from https://monikazagrobelna.com/2020/08/16/how-to-learn-to-draw-by-tracing/

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Midjourney

    2024. Midjourney. Retrieved March 24, 2024 from https://midjourney.com/

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    2024. Vizcom. Retrieved March 24, 2024 from https://app.vizcom.ai/

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Barrett R Anderson, Jash Hemant Shah, and Max Kreminski. 2024. Homog- enization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (Chicago, IL, USA) (C&C ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1145/3635636.3656204

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Hal R Arkes and Catherine Blumer. 1985. The psychology of sunk cost. Organi- zational behavior and human decision processes 35, 1 (1985), 124–140

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    Luca Benedetti, Holger Winnemöller, Massimiliano Corsini, and Roberto Scopigno. 2014. Painting with Bob: assisted creativity for novices. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology . 419–428

    work page 2014

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al . 2023. Improving im- age generation with better captions. Computer Science. https://cdn. openai. com/papers/dall-e-3. pdf 2, 3 (2023), 8

    2023

  2. [10]

    Antoine Bordas, Pascal Le Masson, and Benoit Weil. 2024. Switching perspectives on generative artificial intelligence: a design view for humans-generative AI co-creativity. In R&D Management Conference 2024 . 14

    2024

  3. [11]

    Stephen Brade, Bryan Wang, Mauricio Sousa, Sageev Oore, and Tovi Gross- man. 2023. Promptify: Text-to-image generation through interactive prompt exploration with large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–14

    2023

  4. [12]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. 2023. Instructpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 18392–18402

    2023

  5. [13]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  6. [14]

    Raluca Budiu. 2014. Memory recognition and recall in user interfaces. Nielsen Norman Group 1 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Bill Buxton. 2010. Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan kaufmann

    2010

  8. [16]

    Alice Cai, Steven R Rick, Jennifer L Heyman, Yanxia Zhang, Alexandre Filipowicz, Matthew Hong, Matt Klenk, and Thomas Malone. 2023. DesignAID: Using Generative AI and Semantic Diversity for Design Inspiration. InProceedings of The ACM Collective Intelligence Conference (Delft,...

    2023

  9. [17]

    John Canny. 1986. A computational approach to edge detection.IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 6 (1986), 679–698

    1986

  10. [18]

    Carlos Cardoso, Petra Badke-Schaub, and Ana Luz. 2009. Design fixation on non- verbal stimuli: The influence of simple vs. rich pictorial information on design problem-solving. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineeri...

    2009

  11. [19]

    How To Draw Cars. 2017. Pro Designer Teaches You How To Create Varia- tions on Your Car Design Themes. https://youtu.be/GxFloTllsKE?si=yWYl9w_ etZVZPbnK&t=80. Accessed: September 12, 2024

    2017

  12. [20]

    Minsuk Chang, Stefania Druga, Alexander J Fiannaca, Pedro Vergani, Chinmay Kulkarni, Carrie J Cai, and Michael Terry. 2023. The prompt artists. InProceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition . 75–87

    2023

  13. [21]

    Peiyao Cheng, Ruth Mugge, and Jan PL Schoormans. 2014. A new strategy to reduce design fixation: Presenting partial photographs to designers. Design Studies 35, 4 (2014), 374–391

    2014

  14. [22]

    Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index.ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI) 21, 4 (2014), 1–25

    2014

  15. [23]

    Nicholas Davis, Safat Siddiqui, Pegah Karimi, Mary Lou Maher, and Kazjon Grace

  16. [25]

    de Rooij and M

    A. de Rooij and M. Mose Biskjaer. 2024. Expecting the unexpected: A review of surprise in design processes. In DRS2024: Boston, 23–28 June , C. Gray, E. Cil- iotta Chehade, P. Hekkert, L. Forlano, P. Ciuccarelli, and P. Lloyd (Eds.). Boston, USA. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2024.333

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    Jon-Michael Deldin and Megan Schuknecht. 2013. The AskNature database: enabling solutions in biomimetic design. In Biologically inspired design: Compu- tational methods and tools . Springer, 17–27

    2013

  18. [27]

    Steven P Dow, Alana Glassco, Jonathan Kass, Melissa Schwarz, Daniel L Schwartz, and Scott R Klemmer. 2010. Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI) 17, 4 (2010), 1–24

    2010

  19. [28]

    Zezhong Fan, Xiaohan Li, Kaushiki Nag, Chenhao Fang, Topojoy Biswas, Jianpeng Xu, and Kannan Achan. 2024. Prompt Optimizer of Text-to-Image Diffusion Models for Abstract Concept Understanding. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 (Singapore, Singapore) (WWW ...

    2024

  20. [29]

    Dedre Gentner. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive science 7, 2 (1983), 155–170

    1983

  21. [30]

    Ashok K Goel. 1997. Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE expert 12, 3 (1997), 62–70

    1997

  22. [31]

    Ashok K Goel, Swaroop Vattam, Bryan Wiltgen, and Michael Helms. 2012. Cog- nitive, collaborative, conceptual and creative—Four characteristics of the next generation of knowledge-based CAD systems: A study in biologically inspired design. Computer-Aided Design 44, 10 (2012), 879–900

    2012

  23. [32]

    Yihan Hou, Manling Yang, Hao Cui, Lei Wang, Jie Xu, and Wei Zeng. 2024. C2Ideas: Supporting Creative Interior Color Design Ideation with Large Language Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12586 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Zhengyu Huang, Yichen Peng, Tomohiro Hibino, Chunqi Zhao, Haoran Xie, Tsukasa Fukusato, and Kazunori Miyata. 2022. dualface: Two-stage drawing guidance for freehand portrait sketching. Computational Visual Media 8 (2022), 63–77

    2022

  25. [34]

    Emmanuel Iarussi, Adrien Bousseau, and Theophanis Tsandilas. 2013. The draw- ing assistant: Automated drawing guidance and feedback from photographs. In ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) . ACM

    2013

  26. [35]

    David G Jansson and Steven M Smith. 1991. Design fixation. Design studies 12, 1 (1991), 3–11

    1991

  27. [36]

    Shuo Jiang, Jie Hu, Kristin L Wood, and Jianxi Luo. 2022. Data-driven design-by- analogy: state-of-the-art and future directions. Journal of Mechanical Design 144, 2 (2022), 020801

    2022

  28. [37]

    Shuo Jiang, Jianxi Luo, Guillermo Ruiz-Pava, Jie Hu, and Christopher L Magee

  29. [38]

    Caneel K Joyce. 2009. The blank page: Effects of constraint on creativity. University of California, Berkeley

    2009

  30. [39]

    Hyeonsu B Kang, David Chuan-En Lin, Nikolas Martelaro, Aniket Kittur, Yan- Ying Chen, and Matthew K Hong. 2023. BioSpark: An End-to-End Genera- tive System for Biological-Analogical Inspirations and Ideation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11388 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Mohammed Khaliq, Diego Frassinelli, and Sabine Schulte im Walde. 2024. Compar- ison of Image Generation Models for Abstract and Concrete Event Descriptions. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Figurative Language Processing (FigLang 2024). 15–21

    2024

  32. [41]

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al

  33. [42]

    Ken Kocienda. 2018. Creative selection: Inside Apple’s design process during the golden age of Steve Jobs . Pan Macmillan

    2018

  34. [43]

    E Kwon, A Pehlken, K-D Thoben, A Bazylak, and LH Shu. 2019. Visual similarity to aid alternative-use concept generation for retired wind-turbine blades.Journal of Mechanical Design 141, 3 (2019), 031106

    2019

  35. [44]

    Tomas Lawton, Francisco J Ibarrola, Dan Ventura, and Kazjon Grace. 2023. Draw- ing with reframer: Emergence and control in co-creative ai. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 264–277

    2023

  36. [45]

    Seung Won Lee, Tae Hee Jo, Semin Jin, Jiin Choi, Kyungwon Yun, Sergio Bromberg, Seonghoon Ban, and Kyung Hoon Hyun. 2024. The Impact of Sketch- guided vs. Prompt-guided 3D Generative AIs on the Design Exploration Process. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors i...

    2024

  37. [46]

    Yong Jae Lee, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Michael F Cohen. 2011. Shadowdraw: real-time user guidance for freehand drawing. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 30, 4 (2011), 1–10

    2011

  38. [47]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing S...

    2020

  39. [48]

    Chengze Li, Xueting Liu, and Tien-Tsin Wong. 2017. Deep extraction of manga structural lines. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36, 4 (2017), 1–12

    2017

  40. [49]

    Jiayi Liao, Xu Chen, Qiang Fu, Lun Du, Xiangnan He, Xiang Wang, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. 2024. Text-to-image generation for abstract concepts. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 38. 3360–3368

    2024

  41. [50]

    Alex Limpaecher, Nicolas Feltman, Adrien Treuille, and Michael Cohen. 2013. Real-time drawing assistance through crowdsourcing. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 32, 4 (2013), 1–8

    2013

  42. [51]

    David Chuan-En Lin and Nikolas Martelaro. 2024. Jigsaw: Supporting Designers to Prototype Multimodal Applications by Assembling AI Foundation Models. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2024

  43. [52]

    Zhiyu Lin, Upol Ehsan, Rohan Agarwal, Samihan Dani, Vidushi Vashishth, and Mark Riedl. 2023. Beyond Prompts: Exploring the Design Space of Mixed- Initiative Co-Creativity Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07465 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [53]

    J. S. Linsey, A. B. Markman, and K. L. Wood. 2012. Design by Analogy: A Study of the WordTree Method for Problem Re-Representation. Jour- nal of Mechanical Design 134, 4 (04 2012), 041009. https://doi.org/10.1115/1. 4006145 arXiv:https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanic...

    2012 doi

  45. [54]

    Vivian Liu, Tao Long, Nathan Raw, and Lydia Chilton. 2023. Generative disco: Text-to-video generation for music visualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08551 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Xuebin Qin, Zichen Zhang, Chenyang Huang, Masood Dehghan, Osmar R Zaiane, and Martin Jagersand. 2020. U2-Net: Going deeper with nested U-structure for salient object detection. Pattern recognition 106 (2020), 107404

    2020

  47. [56]

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. 2022. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 10684–10695. 15

    2022

  48. [57]

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Huiwen Chang, Chris Lee, Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, David Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. 2022. Palette: Image-to-image diffusion models. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 conference proceedings . 1–10

    2022

  49. [58]

    Patsorn Sangkloy, Nathan Burnell, Cusuh Ham, and James Hays. 2016. The sketchy database: learning to retrieve badly drawn bunnies. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 35, 4 (2016), 1–12

    2016

  50. [59]

    Vishnu Sarukkai, Lu Yuan, Mia Tang, Maneesh Agrawala, and Kayvon Fatahalian

  51. [60]

    L Siddharth and Amaresh Chakrabarti. 2018. Evaluating the impact of Idea-Inspire 4.0 on analogical transfer of concepts. Ai Edam 32, 4 (2018), 431–448

    2018

  52. [61]

    Kihoon Son, DaEun Choi, Tae Soo Kim, Young-Ho Kim, and Juho Kim. 2024. Gen- query: Supporting expressive visual search with generative models. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2024

  53. [62]

    Julian FV Vincent and Darrell L Mann. 2002. Systematic technology transfer from biology to engineering. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 360, 1791 (2002), 159–173

    2002

  54. [63]

    Kelly, Saumya Pareek, Qiushi Zhou, and Eduardo Velloso

    Samangi Wadinambiarachchi, Ryan M. Kelly, Saumya Pareek, Qiushi Zhou, and Eduardo Velloso. 2024. The Effects of Generative AI on Design Fixation and Divergent Thinking. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). As...

    2024

  55. [64]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  56. [65]

    Blake Williford, Samantha Ray, Jung In Koh, Josh Cherian, Paul Taele, and Tracy Hammond. 2023. Exploring Creativity Support for Concept Art Ideation. In Ex- tended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23). Ass...

    2023

  57. [66]

    Shengqiong Wu, Hao Fei, Hanwang Zhang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Imagine that! abstract-to-intricate text-to-image synthesis with scene graph hallucination diffusion. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (New Orleans, LA, ...

    2024

  58. [67]

    Jun Xie, Aaron Hertzmann, Wilmot Li, and Holger Winnemöller. 2014. PortraitS- ketch: Face sketching assistance for novices. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology . 407–417

    2014

  59. [68]

    Saining Xie and Zhuowen Tu. 2015. Holistically-nested edge detection. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 1395–1403

    2015

  60. [69]

    Yutong Xie, Zhaoying Pan, Jinge Ma, Luo Jie, and Qiaozhu Mei. 2023. A prompt log analysis of text-to-image generation systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 3892–3902

    2023

  61. [70]

    JD Zamfirescu-Pereira, Richmond Y Wong, Bjoern Hartmann, and Qian Yang

  62. [71]

    Chengzhi Zhang, Weijie Wang, Paul Pangaro, Nikolas Martelaro, and Daragh Byrne. 2023. Generative Image AI Using Design Sketches as input: Opportunities and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Virtual Event, USA) (C&C ’23). Association...

    2023

  63. [72]

    Lvmin Zhang, Anyi Rao, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2023. Adding conditional con- trol to text-to-image diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 3836–3847

    2023

  64. [73]

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Zijian Zhang and Yan Jin. 2020. An unsupervised deep learning model to discover visual similarity between sketches for visual analogy support. In International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engi- neering conference, Vol. 83976. Ameri...

    2020

  66. [75]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Why Johnny can’t prompt: how non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

    2023

  67. [2019]

    Creative Sketching Partner: A Co-Creative Sketching Tool to Inspire Design Creativity.. In ICCC. 358–359

  68. [2021]

    Journal of Mechanical Design 143, 6 (2021), 061405

    Deriving design feature vectors for patent images using convolutional neural networks. Journal of Mechanical Design 143, 6 (2021), 061405

    2021

  69. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643 (2023)

    Segment anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  70. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    Block and Detail: Scaffolding Sketch-to-Image Generation. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–13

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.