MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116015303 · doi:10.1109/wacv.2014.6836049

Bayesian Optimization with an Empirical Hardness Model for approximate Nearest Neighbour Search

2014· article· en· W2116015303 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian optimizationComputer scienceProcess (computing)Bayesian probabilityAlgorithmScale-invariant feature transformArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationMachine learningData miningMathematicsFeature extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nearest Neighbour Search in high-dimensional spaces is a common problem in Computer Vision. Although no algorithm better than linear search is known, approximate algorithms are commonly used to tackle this problem. The drawback of using such algorithms is that their performance depends highly on parameter tuning. While this process can be automated using standard empirical optimization techniques, tuning is still time-consuming. In this paper, we propose to use Empirical Hardness Models to reduce the number of parameter configurations that Bayesian Optimization has to try, speeding up the optimization process. Evaluation on standard benchmarks of SIFT and GIST descriptors shows the viability of our approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.310 · 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