Non-metric affinity propagation for unsupervised image categorization
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
Unsupervised categorization of images or image parts is often needed for image and video summarization or as a preprocessing step in supervised methods for classification, tracking and segmentation. While many metric-based techniques have been applied to this problem in the vision community, often, the most natural measures of similarity (e.g., number of matching SIFT features) between pairs of images or image parts is non-metric. Unsupervised categorization by identifying a subset of representative exemplars can be efficiently performed with the recently-proposed 'affinity propagation' algorithm. In contrast to k-centers clustering, which iteratively refines an initial randomly-chosen set of exemplars, affinity propagation simultaneously considers all data points as potential exemplars and iteratively exchanges messages between data points until a good solution emerges. When applied to the Olivetti face data set using a translation-invariant non-metric similarity, affinity propagation achieves a much lower reconstruction error and nearly halves the classification error rate, compared to state-of-the-art techniques. For the more challenging problem of unsupervised categorization of images from the CaltechlOl data set, we derived non-metric similarities between pairs of images by matching SIFT features. Affinity propagation successfully identifies meaningful categories, which provide a natural summarization of the training images and can be used to classify new input images.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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