Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Fragmented Layer Grouping in GUI Designs Through Graph Learning Based on Multimodal Information

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Graph learning regroups scattered UI layers before code generation

desk verdict A solid, incremental GUI-grouping paper whose practical claims mostly hold up, but the SOTA benchmark needs error bars, a clearer delta over the authors' prior ULDGNN, and a failure-mode analysis of the box-assignment heuristic. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05555 v1 pith:MPYRHCYK submitted 2024-12-07 cs.SE cs.AI

Yunnong Chen , Shuhong Xiao , Jiazhi Li , Tingting Zhou , Yanfang Chang , Yankun Zhen , Lingyun Sun , Liuqing Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.AI
keywords fragmentedlayergroupingGUI-to-codegraphneuralnetworkself-attentionmultimodalrepresentationlearningboundingboxregressionclassificationUIdesignprototype
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 tries to establish that fragmented GUI layers—small, individually meaningless layers in a design file that together form one visible component—can be automatically regrouped by a graph neural network that simultaneously classifies each layer and predicts the bounding box of the component it belongs to. This matters because GUI-to-code tools interpret each layer separately, so ungrouped fragments produce redundant, hard-to-maintain front-end code. The authors report state-of-the-art results on two real-world datasets and a user study in which developers fixed generated code with fewer edits and in less time when fragments were grouped first. The central mechanism is a graph built from layer geometry, with node features fusing image, category, and wireframe information, refined by message passing plus self-attention. At stake is whether a design file's messy layer tree can be turned into a semantic component structure automatically, which would let GUI-to-code tools emit cleaner code with less human repair.

What carries the argument

The central object is a reconstructed UI graph: layers are flattened from the original view hierarchy, sorted by area, and connected by parent-child inclusion relations, with edges added between same-level nodes and edge attributes encoding coordinate differences. Each node's initial embedding sums a visual feature vector from a pre-trained image backbone, a learned one-hot category embedding, and a high-frequency positional encoding of the layer's wireframe. The graph learning block combines local message passing in the style of a graph isomorphism network with multi-head self-attention, so each layer can gather information from nearby and distant layers while avoiding over-smoothing. Two output heads then perform the joint prediction: a classification branch with focal loss decides whether a layer is fragmented, and a localization branch with CIoU loss regresses bounding boxes of merging groups, using anchor boxes centered on layer centers. Post-processing clusters overlapping boxes by an improved non-maximum-suppression algorithm and assigns fragmented layers to boxes sorted by area, using a fixed overlap threshold.

What would settle it

Build a test artboard whose only background is one full-canvas layer behind two overlapping foreground groups, then run the released model and check whether the background layer is assigned to both groups, one group, or neither; under the paper's algorithm the full-canvas layer intersects every predicted box, so the fixed 0.7 intersection-proportion threshold alone decides the assignment, and any assignment that merges the background into only one foreground group would contradict the claim that semantically consistent layers are grouped correctly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that fragmented layer grouping—reassembling the scattered layers of a GUI design file into the components a user actually sees—is best solved as a joint task on a graph, not as either pure object detection or pure layer classification. They build a graph from the layer geometry, let a graph neural network with self-attention refine multimodal node features, and read out two things per layer: whether it is fragmented, and a bounding box for the component it belongs to. Fragmented layers inside a predicted box are then grouped. On two real-world datasets the model reports the best numbers among the tested methods, with a classification F1 score of 0.903 and an association recall of 0.895, and a user study with ten developers reports that pre-processing design files this way reduces average code-fixing time by about 42 percent and raises rated readability and maintainability.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a fragmented layer's correct merging group can be found by intersecting that layer with predicted bounding boxes and assigning it by a fixed overlap threshold; this can fail when the layer belongs to a component outside every detected box or when overlapping background and foreground components have nearly equal areas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, industrial GUI-to-code pipelines can be changed at their input: group fragments first, then generate code, and the resulting front-end code needs fewer manual corrections.
  • Combining layer classification with bounding-box regression avoids the failure of detection-only methods that wrongly merge non-fragmented layers inside a large predicted box.
  • Adding global self-attention to message passing lets the model associate distant background fragments with their component, addressing a weakness of sequence-based grouping methods.
  • The learned grouping transfers to new design domains with some degradation, suggesting that the approach generalizes beyond the original training data but still has a gap on varied community designs.
  • The model can output a relation matrix of which layers belong together, providing a direct evaluation target and a reusable representation for downstream tools.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same graph-and-box formulation could be applied to vector illustration files, document layout exports, or game UI assets, wherever a design file stores one visual object as many separate layers.
  • Beyond the paper: because the method outputs a relation matrix, it could serve as a generic preprocessor for any design-file-to-DOM converter, not only the industrial platform tested in the user study.
  • Beyond the paper: the fixed overlap threshold used to assign fragmented layers to predicted boxes is a natural place for improvement; replacing it with a learned or combinatorial assignment could fix the background-overlap failure mode described in the paper's own limitation section.
  • A testable extension would be to feed the model screenshot-derived pseudo-layers instead of design-file metadata, which would show how much of the performance depends on access to the original layer structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the fragmented-layer grouping problem in GUI design-to-code pipelines. The proposed ULDGNN pipeline parses a design artboard into a flattened layer list, reconstructs a graph from geometric inclusion relationships, encodes per-layer visual, category, and wireframe features plus edge attributes, and refines node embeddings with alternating graph message-passing and self-attention blocks. Two output heads classify each layer as fragmented or not and regress bounding boxes for merging groups, with anchor boxes centered at layers; an improved NMS merge and an area-sorted intersection-proportion rule assign fragmented layers to merging groups. Experiments compare against UILM, EGFE, GCN, GAT, GCNII, and GraphGPS on the UILM/EGFE dataset, report ablations, evaluate generalization on a newly collected Figma dataset, and include a user study with 10 developers using Imgcook to measure code availability, modification time, readability, and maintainability.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper would make a useful contribution to an industrially relevant problem: it proposes a concrete architecture that combines classification and box regression in a graph setting, releases code and data (GitHub and Zenodo links are provided), includes a held-out Figma dataset for generalization, and provides a small but statistically tested user study showing downstream code-quality gains. The strengths are the clear problem formulation, the explicit multimodal graph construction, and the attempt to validate on a second real-world dataset. However, the significance of the central state-of-the-art claim is currently limited by the non-standard grouping metrics, the absence of uncertainty quantification in the main tables, and the unresolved interplay between the learned boxes and the geometric grouping heuristic. These issues are addressable and do not, by themselves, invalidate the approach.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.4.2 and Table 2] The grouping results in Table 2 are produced by the geometric assignment rule in §3.4.2: after NMS, boxes are sorted by area and a fragmented layer is assigned to the first predicted box containing more than 70% of the layer. This rule is the load-bearing bridge between the learned outputs and the claimed grouping, and the paper does not quantify its failure modes. Because Table 1 reports classification recall of 0.891, roughly 11% of fragmented layers produce no reliable predicted box, which caps grouping recall before the postprocessor starts; and when a fragmented layer overlaps two predicted boxes with above-threshold coverage, the area-ascending order makes the assignment arbitrary, exactly in the background/foreground overlap cases the paper identifies as difficult in §1 and §3.4.2. I ask the authors to report (a) the fraction of fragmented layers whose ground-truth group box is absent or too tight in the predicted box set, (b) the frequency of ambiguous multi-box overlap cases, and (c) grouping metrics when the postprocessor is given oracle boxes, so the reader can separate the learned representation from the heuristic. Without this, Table 2 partly measures the heuristic rather than the model.
  2. [§4.2.2, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The asso-precision and asso-recall metrics are not standard precision and recall and, as written, do not measure what the text claims, namely correct merging pairs. Equation (18) sums pairwise agreement over all i,j in Sgt including i=j and divides by (#Sgt)^2, so the diagonal always contributes true positives and cross-group false positives, such as i in Sgt and j outside Sgt, are not penalized in the denominator. Equation (19) has the analogous issue for predicted groups. The formulas therefore measure a kind of within-set pair accuracy rather than precision/recall over the set of same-group pairs. Because the central SOTA claim is based on these numbers, the authors should either justify the metrics with a formal definition or re-report using standard pair-based precision and recall over the sets {(i,j): M_ij=1} and {(i,j): M^gt_ij=1}, with i=j excluded.
  3. [Tables 1-6] All quantitative results in Tables 1 through 6 appear to be single-run point estimates with no variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several of the claimed improvements are small, for example F1 0.903 versus 0.893 for GraphGPS in Table 1 and asso-precision 0.818 versus 0.817 for Attn+GAT in Table 2, and with a single split and no repeated runs the differences are within plausible noise. I ask the authors to run multiple seeds or bootstrap over artboards and report means and confidence intervals, and to test the key pairwise comparisons. The user study in §5.2 does report Mann-Whitney U tests, which makes the absence of uncertainty quantification in the main tables conspicuous.
  4. [§4.4.2 and Table 3] The ablation w/o Self-attention uses a 5-layer GINE model while the full model uses 9 graph learning blocks (Section 4.1.2 and Table 5). The comparison therefore changes both the presence of self-attention and the network depth, so the observed drop cannot be attributed to self-attention alone; it could be due to depth or to the interaction of depth with attention. The over-smoothing explanation is asserted but not directly measured. Please rerun the ablation with a matched 9-layer GINE, or with self-attention at 5 layers, and ideally report a quantitative over-smoothing diagnostic such as node embedding similarity across layers.
  5. [§4.4.6 and Abstract] The abstract states that experiments on two real-world datasets demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, but Table 6 evaluates only the proposed method on the Figma dataset; no UILM, EGFE, or other baselines are run there. As reported, the Figma results show generalization of the proposed model, not SOTA comparisons against prior methods. Either add baselines on the Figma dataset or soften the claim to state-of-the-art on the original dataset and competitive performance on a second dataset.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2] The text says the average modification time is reduced by 42.1%, but Table 7 shows a reduction from 9.61 to 6.67 minutes, which is a 30.6% reduction relative to the control condition; the stated percentage should be corrected.
  2. [§4.1.1] The dataset description does not state the number of artboards, layers, fragmented layers, or merging groups in the training and test splits; adding these statistics would help readers judge the scale and difficulty of the benchmark.
  3. [§4.3.1 and elsewhere] Percentage-point differences such as 2.2% higher and 5.3% should be phrased as 2.2 percentage points and 5.3 percentage points to avoid ambiguity when comparing F1 and recall scores.
  4. [§3.4.1, Algorithm 1] The operation average(C) is not defined; the authors should state whether it averages box coordinates, widths and heights, or both, and should clarify what the returned M and S represent.
  5. [§4.2.2, Eqs. (20)-(21)] There is a typo iou-precison in the caption, and the notation iou versus IoU should be made consistent across the equations and tables.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central derivation is self-contained: grouping results come from held-out supervised network outputs plus fixed postprocessing, not from a fitted target. Minor same-team self-citation [12] is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is a supervised pipeline: ground-truth fragmented labels and merging-group boxes supervise the classification (focal loss, Eq. 11) and localization/confidence losses (Eqs. 13 and 16), combined in Eq. 17. Grouping is produced by the postprocessors of Sections 3.4.1-3.4.2 (NMS box averaging, then area-ascending assignment with a 0.7 intersection threshold). This is a deterministic decoder from network outputs, not a definitional identity: ground-truth grouping is annotated independently (including the 508 Figma prototypes annotated by five designers, Section 4.4.6), and Tables 1-2 report held-out test results. Hyperparameters such as lambda values, number of layers, and the 0.7 threshold were selected via Table 5 experiments and fixed before final evaluation; tuning constants on validation is model selection, not fitting the predicted grouping. The only same-team self-citation is [12] in the related-work survey ('sequence learning [10] or graph learning [12]'); it is descriptive prior work and does not justify the architecture or forbid alternatives, so it is not load-bearing. The 0.7 IoU rule reused in Section 4.2.2 for UILM's pseudo-labels is a baseline-conversion heuristic; it does not train the proposed model or define its ground truth. The Section 3.4.2 geometric assignment is a plausible failure-mode risk when boxes are missing or ambiguous, but that is a robustness concern, not circularity. Score 2 reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation; no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model introduces seven tuned hyperparameters and several domain assumptions about GUI structure and annotations. No new physical entities are postulated; the only invented construct is the '#merge#' software marker.

free parameters (7)
  • Loss weighting coefficients lambda_cls, lambda_loc, lambda_con = 1, 10, 5
    Chosen by validation performance (Section 4.1.2, Table 5); the reported SOTA numbers depend on this tuning.
  • Number of graph learning blocks = 9
    Selected via hyperparameter experiments in Table 5; all classification and grouping metrics depend on it.
  • NMS box-cluster IoU threshold = 0.45
    Set in Section 4.1.2; determines which predicted boxes are merged into a final merging-group boundary.
  • Merge-association IoU threshold = 0.7
    Set in Section 4.1.2; controls whether a fragmented layer is assigned to a merging group.
  • Anchor box heights and aspect ratios = heights 16, 128, 256; aspect ratios 2:1, 1:1, 1:2
    Predefined in Section 3.3.2; bounding-box regression quality depends on these anchors.
  • Sliding window size = not specified
    Section 4.1.1 uses a fixed but unspecified window to cut large artboards; it affects graph construction and grouping recall.
  • Focal loss hyperparameters alpha and gamma = not specified
    Equation 11 introduces them but the paper never reports values; classification results depend on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained ResNet-50 features transfer to small 64x64 GUI layer images.
    Section 3.2.2 and Section 4.1.2 rely on ImageNet-pretrained features without demonstration that they transfer to tiny GUI crops.
  • domain assumption Spatially proximate and nested layers with similar visual semantics should form a merging group.
    This guides graph construction and edge encoding; if semantic grouping is not well predicted by geometry, the learned graph may not help.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth fragmented-layer annotations by designers are correct.
    Training and all metrics depend on labels from UILM/EGFE datasets and a newly collected Figma set; no inter-annotator agreement is reported (Sections 4.1.1 and 4.4.6).
  • ad hoc to paper Box containment plus an IoU threshold determines semantic membership.
    Section 3.4.2 uses this heuristic post-processing rule without validation against alternative grouping rules.
invented entities (1)
  • '#merge#' marker tag injected into the layer tree independent evidence
    purpose: Signals the downstream imgcook tool to merge grouped layers into a single image container.
    Section 5.2 and Figure 7; this is a software convention whose effect is directly observable in the generated DOM tree.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fragmented Layer Grouping in GUI Designs Through Graph Learning Based on Multimodal Information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPYRHCYK

@misc{pith2026241205555,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fragmented Layer Grouping in GUI Designs Through Graph Learning Based on Multimodal Information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPYRHCYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05555}
}
read the original abstract

Automatically constructing GUI groups of different granularities constitutes a critical intelligent step towards automating GUI design and implementation tasks. Specifically, in the industrial GUI-to-code process, fragmented layers may decrease the readability and maintainability of generated code, which can be alleviated by grouping semantically consistent fragmented layers in the design prototypes. This study aims to propose a graph-learning-based approach to tackle the fragmented layer grouping problem according to multi-modal information in design prototypes. Our graph learning module consists of self-attention and graph neural network modules. By taking the multimodal fused representation of GUI layers as input, we innovatively group fragmented layers by classifying GUI layers and regressing the bounding boxes of the corresponding GUI components simultaneously. Experiments on two real-world datasets demonstrate that our model achieves state-of-the-art performance. A further user study is also conducted to validate that our approach can assist an intelligent downstream tool in generating more maintainable and readable front-end code.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. DesignCoder: Hierarchy-Aware and Self-Correcting UI Code Generation with Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A hierarchy-aware, self-correcting LLM pipeline for generating React Native UI code improves visual fidelity and structural similarity over baselines on 300 mockups.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [12]

    Li, J., Zhou, T., Chen, Y., Chang, Y., Zhen, Y., Sun, L., Chen, L.: ULDGNN: A Fragmented UI Layer Detector Based on Graph Neural Networks (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    https://developer.sketch.com/cli/ (2022)

    Sketch Command-line interface. https://developer.sketch.com/cli/ (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    https://www.figma.com/ (2015)

    Figma. https://www.figma.com/ (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 46(2), 196–221 (2018)

    Moran, K., Bernal-C´ ardenas, C., Curcio, M., Bonett, R., Poshyvanyk, D.: Machine learning-based prototyping of graphical user interfaces for mobile apps. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 46(2), 196–221 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    http://www

    Alibaba: Intelligent Code Generation for Design Drafts (2021). http://www. imgcook.com/[AccessedonDec.27,2021]

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp

    Beltramelli, T.: pix2code: Generating code from a graphical user interface screen- shot. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp. 1–6 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    In: 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp

    Chen, C., Su, T., Meng, G., Xing, Z., Liu, Y.: From ui design image to gui skeleton: A neural machine translator to bootstrap mobile gui implementation. In: 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 665–676 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3180155.3180240

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 7th International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems, pp

    Mohian, S., Csallner, C.: Doodle2app: Native app code by freehand ui sketch- ing. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 7th International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems, pp. 81–84 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04975 (2024)

    Xiao, S., Chen, Y., Li, J., Chen, L., Sun, L., Zhou, T.: Prototype2code: End- to-end front-end code generation from ui design prototypes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04975 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering (2022)

    Yunnong, C., Yankun, Z., Chuning, S., Jiazhi, L., Liuqing, C., Zejian, L., Lingyun, S., Tingting, Z., Yanfang, C.: Ui layers merger: merging ui layers via visual learning and boundary prior. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, pp

    Chen, L., Chen, Y., Xiao, S., Song, Y., Sun, L., Zhen, Y., Zhou, T., Chang, Y.: Egfe: End-to-end grouping of fragmented elements in ui designs with multimodal learning. In: Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 1–12 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineer- ing Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

    Xie, M., Xing, Z., Feng, S., Xu, X., Zhu, L., Chen, C.: Psychologically- inspired, unsupervised inference of perceptual groups of gui widgets from gui images. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineer- ing Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of S...

    2022

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Manandhar, D., Jin, H., Collomosse, J.: Magic layouts: Structural prior for com- ponent detection in user interface designs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 15809–15818 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    He, Z., Sunkara, S., Zang, X., Xu, Y., Liu, L., Wichers, N., Schubiner, G., Lee, R., Chen, J.: Actionbert: Leveraging user actions for semantic understanding of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, pp. 5931–5938 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp

    Liu, T.F., Craft, M., Situ, J., Yumer, E., Mech, R., Kumar, R.: Learning design semantics for mobile apps. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 569–579 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction, pp

    Zang, X., Xu, Y., Chen, J.: Multimodal icon annotation for mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 1–11 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp

    Degott, C., Borges Jr, N.P., Zeller, A.: Learning user interface element interac- tions. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 296–306 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    In: 2019 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp

    Li, Y., Yang, Z., Guo, Y., Chen, X.: Humanoid: A deep learning-based approach to automated black-box android app testing. In: 2019 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 1070–1073 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASE.2019.00104

    2019

  11. [19]

    In: 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp

    Nguyen, T.A., Csallner, C.: Reverse engineering mobile application user inter- faces with remaui (t). In: 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 248–259 (2015). https://doi.org/10. 1109/ASE.2015.32

    2015

  12. [20]

    In: Proceed- ings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Zhang, X., Greef, L., Swearngin, A., White, S., Murray, K., Yu, L., Shan, Q., Nichols, J., Wu, J., Fleizach, C., Everitt, A., Bigham, J.P.: Screen recognition: Creating accessibility metadata for mobile applications from pixels. In: Proceed- ings of the 2021 CHI Conference on ...

    2021

  13. [21]

    In: CAAI International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp

    Xiao, S., Zhou, T., Chen, Y., Zhang, D., Chen, L., Sun, L., Yue, S.: Ui layers group detector: Grouping ui layers via text fusion and box attention. In: CAAI International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 303–314 (2022). Springer

    2022

  14. [22]

    Displays 83, 102679 (2024)

    Xiao, S., Chen, Y., Song, Y., Chen, L., Sun, L., Zhen, Y., Chang, Y., Zhou, 27 T.: Ui semantic component group detection: Grouping ui elements with similar semantics in mobile graphical user interface. Displays 83, 102679 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Con- ference on Web Search and Data Mining

    Zheng, S., Hu, Z., Ma, Y.: Faceoff: Assisting the manifestation design of web graphical user interface. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Con- ference on Web Search and Data Mining. WSDM ’19, pp. 774–777. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2...

    2019

  16. [24]

    In: 2018 33rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp

    Bajammal, M., Mazinanian, D., Mesbah, A.: Generating reusable web compo- nents from mockups. In: 2018 33rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 601–611 (2018). https://doi.org/10. 1145/3238147.3238194

    2018

  17. [25]

    Bielik, P., Fischer, M., Vechev, M.: Robust relational layout synthesis from examples for android. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2(OOPSLA) (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1145/3276526

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering

    Yandrapally, R., Stocco, A., Mesbah, A.: Near-duplicate detection in web app model inference. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE ’20, pp. 186–197. Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://...

    2020

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings

    Gori, M., Monfardini, G., Scarselli, F.: A new model for learning in graph domains. In: Proceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005., vol. 2, pp. 729–734 (2005). IEEE

    2005

  20. [28]

    In: 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014 (2014)

    Bruna, J., Zaremba, W., Szlam, A., LeCun, Y.: Spectral networks and deep locally connected networks on graphs. In: 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 29, 3844–3852 (2016)

    Defferrard, M., Bresson, X., Vandergheynst, P.: Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering. Advances in neural information processing systems 29, 3844–3852 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2022)

    Kipf, T.N., Welling, M.: Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Monti, F., Boscaini, D., Masci, J., Rodola, E., Svoboda, J., Bronstein, M.M.: Geometric deep learning on graphs and manifolds using mixture model cnns. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 5115–5124 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp

    Hamilton, W.L., Ying, R., Leskovec, J.: Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1025–1035 (2017) 28

    2017

  25. [33]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations

    Veliˇ ckovi´ c, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Li` o, P., Bengio, Y.: Graph attention networks. In: International Conference on Learning Representations

  26. [34]

    Brody, S., Alon, U., Yahav, E.: How attentive are graph attention networks? In: International Conference on Learning Representations

  27. [35]

    IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 68, 6303–6318 (2020)

    Ruiz, L., Gama, F., Ribeiro, A.: Gated graph recurrent neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 68, 6303–6318 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Xu, K., Hu, W., Leskovec, J., Jegelka, S.: How powerful are graph neural networks? In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    9267–9276 (2019)

    Li, G., Muller, M., Thabet, A., Ghanem, B.: Deepgcns: Can gcns go as deep as cnns? In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 9267–9276 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Chen, M., Wei, Z., Huang, Z., Ding, B., Li, Y.: Simple and deep graph convolu- tional networks. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1725–1735 (2020). PMLR

    2020

  31. [39]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 14501–14515 (2022)

    Ramp´ aˇ sek, L., Galkin, M., Dwivedi, V.P., Luu, A.T., Wolf, G., Beaini, D.: Recipe for a general, powerful, scalable graph transformer. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 14501–14515 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Ying, C., Cai, T., Luo, S., Zheng, S., Ke, G., He, D., Shen, Y., Liu, T.-Y.: Do transformers really perform badly for graph representation? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34, 28877–28888 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Shi, W., Rajkumar, R.: Point-gnn: Graph neural network for 3d object detection in a point cloud. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1711–1719 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Wen, Y.-H., Gao, L., Fu, H., Zhang, F.-L., Xia, S.: Graph cnns with motif and variable temporal block for skeleton-based action recognition. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 8989–8996 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Qi, X., Liao, R., Jia, J., Fidler, S., Urtasun, R.: 3d graph neural networks for rgbd semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 5199–5208 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    In: 27th International Con- ference on Intelligent User Interfaces

    Ang, G., Lim, E.P.: Learning user interface semantics from heterogeneous networks with multimodal and positional attributes. In: 27th International Con- ference on Intelligent User Interfaces. IUI ’22, pp. 433–446. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2022)....

    2022

  37. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Li, G., Baechler, G., Tragut, M., Li, Y.: Learning to denoise raw mobile ui lay- outs for improving datasets at scale. In: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’22. Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2022). ht...

    2022

  38. [46]

    In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I, pp

    Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Tancik, M., Barron, J.T., Ramamoorthi, R., Ng, R.: Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part I, pp. 405–4...

    2020

  39. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    Girshick, R.: Fast r-cnn. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1440–1448 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Ross, T.-Y., Doll´ ar, G.: Focal loss for dense object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2980– 2988 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Zheng, Z., Wang, P., Liu, W., Li, J., Ye, R., Ren, D.: Distance-iou loss: Faster and better learning for bounding box regression. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, pp. 12993–13000 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recogni- tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 770–778 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations

    Hu, W., Liu, B., Gomes, J., Zitnik, M., Liang, P., Pande, V., Leskovec, J.: Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks. In: International Conference on Learning Representations

  44. [52]

    In: Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations

    Loshchilov, I., Hutter, F.: Decoupled weight decay regularization. In: Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations

  45. [53]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp

    He, K., Gkioxari, G., Doll´ ar, P., Girshick, R.: Mask r-cnn. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2961–2969 (2017) 30

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.