Query Feedback for Interactive Image Retrieval
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a perceptual standpoint, the subjectivity inherent in understanding and interpreting visual content in multimedia indexing and retrieval motivates the need for online interactive learning. Since efficiency and speed are important factors in interactive visual content retrieval, most of the current approaches impose restrictive assumptions on similarity calculation and learning algorithms. Specifically, content-based image retrieval techniques generally assume that perceptually similar images are situated close to each other within a connected region of a given space of visual features. This paper proposes a novel method for interactive image retrieval using query feedback. Query feedback learns the user query as well as the correspondence between high-level user concepts and their low-level machine representation by performing retrievals according to multiple queries supplied by the user during the course of a retrieval session. The results presented in this paper demonstrate that this algorithm provides accurate retrieval results with acceptable interaction speed compared to existing methods.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it