MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078593523 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2010.5495175

A new Laplacian mixture conditional random field model for image labeling

2010· article· en· W2078593523 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaofeng Wang, Xiao–Ping Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConditional random fieldGraphical modelInferenceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLaplace operatorFeature (linguistics)Gradient descentPattern recognition (psychology)Probabilistic logicBelief propagationStochastic gradient descentRandom fieldImage (mathematics)Field (mathematics)Machine learningAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial neural networkStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a novel conditional random field (CRF) model based on Laplacian mixtures for image labeling. Nature images posses many spatial regularities that can be efficiently modeled by probabilistic graphical models such as CRF. Usually hundreds of features and several types of feature functions are used together which increases computational complexity and makes the training difficult to converge. We propose a new Laplacian mixture CRF model, which simplifies the training and inference process without losing labeling accuracy. The belief propagation inference and stochastic gradient descent training are formulated accordingly for the new model. The experimental results demonstrate that the new approach achieves better classification accuracy than the baseline CRF and comparable results with the state-of-the-art complex models.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207