Using Language to Learn Structured Appearance Models for Image Annotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given an unstructured collection of captioned images of cluttered scenes featuring a variety of objects, our goal is to simultaneously learn the names and appearances of the objects. Only a small fraction of local features within any given image are associated with a particular caption word, and captions may contain irrelevant words not associated with any image object. We propose a novel algorithm that uses the repetition of feature neighborhoods across training images and a measure of correspondence with caption words to learn meaningful feature configurations (representing named objects). We also introduce a graph-based appearance model that captures some of the structure of an object by encoding the spatial relationships among the local visual features. In an iterative procedure, we use language (the words) to drive a perceptual grouping process that assembles an appearance model for a named object. Results of applying our method to three data sets in a variety of conditions demonstrate that, from complex, cluttered, real-world scenes with noisy captions, we can learn both the names and appearances of objects, resulting in a set of models invariant to translation, scale, orientation, occlusion, and minor changes in viewpoint or articulation. These named models, in turn, are used to automatically annotate new, uncaptioned images, thereby facilitating keyword-based image retrieval.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".