MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152769698 · doi:10.1109/tip.2011.2170082

Co-Transduction for Shape Retrieval

2011· article· en· W2152769698 on OpenAlexaff
Xiang Bai, Bo Wang, Cong Yao, Wenyu Liu, Zhuowen Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Artificial intelligenceTransduction (biophysics)Ranking (information retrieval)Computer scienceSimilarity measureMetric (unit)Image retrievalPattern recognition (psychology)Measure (data warehouse)Set (abstract data type)Object (grammar)Data miningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a new shape/object retrieval algorithm, namely, co-transduction. The performance of a retrieval system is critically decided by the accuracy of adopted similarity measures (distances or metrics). In shape/object retrieval, ideally, intraclass objects should have smaller distances than interclass objects. However, it is a difficult task to design an ideal metric to account for the large intraclass variation. Different types of measures may focus on different aspects of the objects: for example, measures computed based on contours and skeletons are often complementary to each other. Our goal is to develop an algorithm to fuse different similarity measures for robust shape retrieval through a semisupervised learning framework. We name our method co-transduction, which is inspired by the co-training algorithm. Given two similarity measures and a query shape, the algorithm iteratively retrieves the most similar shapes using one measure and assigns them to a pool for the other measure to do a re-ranking, and vice versa. Using co-transduction, we achieved an improved result of 97.72% (bull's-eye measure) on the MPEG-7 data set over the state-of-the-art performance. We also present an algorithm called tri-transduction to fuse multiple-input similarities, and it achieved 99.06% on the MPEG-7 data set. Our algorithm is general, and it can be directly applied on input similarity measures/metrics; it is not limited to object shape retrieval and can be applied to other tasks for ranking/retrieval.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.006

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations112
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207