MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123782934 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2003.1159942

Transformation-invariant clustering using the EM algorithm

2003· article· en· W2123782934 on OpenAlexaff
Brendan J. Frey, Nebojša Jojić

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Invariant (physics)Transformation (genetics)ClutterComputer visionAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clustering is a simple, effective way to derive useful representations of data, such as images and videos. Clustering explains the input as one of several prototypes, plus noise. In situations where each input has been randomly transformed (e.g., by translation, rotation, and shearing in images and videos), clustering techniques tend to extract cluster centers that account for variations in the input due to transformations, instead of more interesting and potentially useful structure. For example, if images from a video sequence of a person walking across a cluttered background are clustered, it would be more useful for the different clusters to represent different poses and expressions, instead of different positions of the person and different configurations of the background clutter. We describe a way to add transformation invariance to mixture models, by approximating the nonlinear transformation manifold by a discrete set of points. We show how the expectation maximization algorithm can be used to jointly learn clusters, while at the same time inferring the transformation associated with each input. We compare this technique with other methods for filtering noisy images obtained from a scanning electron microscope, clustering images from videos of faces into different categories of identification and pose and removing foreground obstructions from video. We also demonstrate that the new technique is quite insensitive to initial conditions and works better than standard techniques, even when the standard techniques are provided with extra data.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations204
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207