MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967591639 · doi:10.1109/aisp.2012.6313765

Logo recognition based on a novel pairwise classification approach

2012· article· en· W1967591639 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Ali Bagheri, Qigang Gao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Pairwise comparisonClass (philosophy)Contextual image classificationMulticlass classificationMachine learningBinary classificationField (mathematics)k-nearest neighbors algorithmSet (abstract data type)Logo (programming language)Image (mathematics)Support vector machineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Logo recognition is an important task in the field of document image processing and retrieval. Successful recognition of logos facilitates automatic classification of source documents, which has been considered as a key strategy for document image analysis. From machine learning point of view, logo recognition may be considered as a multi-class classification problem. In this paper, a novel multi-class pairwise classification method is proposed and applied to logo recognition application. The proposed system takes the advantages of simplicity and speed of the nearest neighbor classification algorithm and the strength of other powerful binary classifiers to discriminate between two classes. The method is first validated on a set of UCI Machine Learning Repository datasets and then applied to the real machine vision problem. The experimental results show that the proposed technique not only achieves better classification accuracy, but also is computationally more efficient for tackling the classification problems which have large number of target classes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207