Distilled Collections from Textual Image Queries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a distillation algorithm which operates on a large, unstructured, and noisy collection of internet images returned from an online object query. We introduce the notion of a distilled set, which is a clean, coherent, and structured subset of inlier images. In addition, the object of interest is properly segmented out throughout the distilled set. Our approach is unsupervised, built on a novel clustering scheme, and solves the distillation and object segmentation problems simultaneously. In essence, instead of distilling the collection of images, we distill a collection of loosely cutout foreground “shapes”, which may or may not contain the queried object. Our key observation, which motivated our clustering scheme, is that outlier shapes are expected to be random in nature, whereas, inlier shapes, which do tightly enclose the object of interest, tend to be well supported by similar shapes captured in similar views. We analyze the commonalities among candidate foreground segments, without aiming to analyze their semantics, but simply by clustering similar shapes and considering only the most significant clusters representing non‐trivial shapes. We show that when tuned conservatively, our distillation algorithm is able to extract a near perfect subset of true inliers. Furthermore, we show that our technique scales well in the sense that the precision rate remains high, as the collection grows. We demonstrate the utility of our distillation results with a number of interesting graphics applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".