Learning to Combine Kernels for Object Categorization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kernel classifiers based on the hand-crafted image descriptors proposed in the literature have achieved state-of-the-art results in several dataset and been widely used in image classification systems. Due to the high intra-class and inter-class variety of image categories, no single descriptor could be optimal in all situations. Combining multiple descriptors for a given task is a way to improve the accuracy of the image classification systems. In this paper, we propose a filter framework “Learning to Align the Kernel to its Ideal Form(LAKIF)” to automatically learn the optimal linear combination of multiple kernels. Given the image dataset and the kernels computed on the image descriptors, the optimal kernel weight is learned before the classification. Our method effectively learns the kernel weights by aligning the kernels to their ideal forms, leading to quadratic programming solution. The method takes into account the variation of kernel matrix and imbalanced dataset, which are common in real world image categorization tasks. Experimental results on Graz-01 and Caltech-101 image databases show the effectiveness and robustness of our method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".