MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020315425 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2011.5995541

Modeling the joint density of two images under a variety of transformations

2011· article· en· W2020315425 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua M. Susskind, Geoffrey E. Hinton, Roland Memisevic, Marc Pollefeys

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceGenerative modelMatching (statistics)Invariant (physics)Joint probability distributionSimilarity (geometry)Measure (data warehouse)Similarity measureFace (sociological concept)Generative grammarImage (mathematics)MathematicsData miningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a generative model of the relationship between two images. The model is defined as a factored three-way Boltzmann machine, in which hidden variables collaborate to define the joint correlation matrix for image pairs. Modeling the joint distribution over pairs makes it possible to efficiently match images that are the same according to a learned measure of similarity. We apply the model to several face matching tasks, and show that it learns to represent the input images using task-specific basis functions. Matching performance is superior to previous similar generative models, including recent conditional models of transformations. We also show that the model can be used as a plug-in matching score to perform invariant classification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations51
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace recognition and analysisFrench-language works237,207