Learning object recognition models from images
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
To recognize an object in an image an internal model is required to indicate how that object may appear. The authors show how to learn such a model from a series of training images depicting a class of objects, producing a model that represents a probability distribution over the variation in object appearance. Features identified in an image through perceptual organization are represented by a graph whose nodes include feature labels and numeric measurements. A learning procedure generalizes multiple image graphs to form a model graph in which the numeric measurements are characterized by probability distributions. A matching procedure, using a similarity metric based on a non-parametric probability density estimator, compares model and image graphs to identify an instance of a modeled object in an image. Experimental results are presented from a system constructed to test this approach. The system learns to recognize partially occluded 2-D objects in 2-D images using shape cues. It can recognize objects as similar in general appearance while distinguishing them by their detailed features. >
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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