Supervised Learning of Semantic Classes for Image Annotation and Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A probabilistic formulation for semantic image annotation and retrieval is proposed. Annotation and retrieval are posed as classification problems where each class is defined as the group of database images labeled with a common semantic label. It is shown that, by establishing this one-to-one correspondence between semantic labels and semantic classes, a minimum probability of error annotation and retrieval are feasible with algorithms that are 1) conceptually simple, 2) computationally efficient, and 3) do not require prior semantic segmentation of training images. In particular, images are represented as bags of localized feature vectors, a mixture density estimated for each image, and the mixtures associated with all images annotated with a common semantic label pooled into a density estimate for the corresponding semantic class. This pooling is justified by a multiple instance learning argument and performed efficiently with a hierarchical extension of expectation-maximization. The benefits of the supervised formulation over the more complex, and currently popular, joint modeling of semantic label and visual feature distributions are illustrated through theoretical arguments and extensive experiments. The supervised formulation is shown to achieve higher accuracy than various previously published methods at a fraction of their computational cost. Finally, the proposed method is shown to be fairly robust to parameter tuning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".