“…For the first family, the evaluation produced the following five groups in which shapes are listed in increasing order of complexity: Group 1: (16,14,12,17,18,19,20) Group 2: (15, 13, 24, 22) Group 3: (23, 21, 25) Group 4: (11, 10, 7, 1, 2) Group 5: (9,8,4,5,6,3) For the second family, the evaluation produced the following six groups in which shapes are considered to be of equal complexity: Group 1: (18,24,17,20) Group 2: (25,21,22,19) Group 3: (5, 3, 2) Group 4: (23,16,15) Group 5: (6, 4, 14, 12, 13) Group 6: (7,9,10,1,11,8) As the shapes from different groups are incommensurate, we provide ground truths only for the shapes in the same group. While many qualitative notions of complexity could equally apply to shapes of the kind we use in this collection, we consider the aforementioned notion of executional complexity one of the best determinants of complexity for 3D models representing design objects (i.e.…”