Exploring Compositional High Order Pattern Potentials for Structured Output Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When modeling structured outputs such as image segmentations, prediction can be improved by accurately modeling structure present in the labels. A key challenge is developing tractable models that are able to capture complex high level structure like shape. In this work, we study the learning of a general class of pattern-like high order potential, which we call Compositional High Order Pattern Potentials (CHOPPs). We show that CHOPPs include the linear deviation pattern potentials of Rother et al. [26] and also Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs), we also establish the near equivalence of these two models. Experimentally, we show that performance is affected significantly by the degree of variability present in the datasets, and we define a quantitative variability measure to aid in studying this. We then improve CHOPPs performance in high variability datasets with two primary contributions: (a) developing a loss-sensitive joint learning procedure, so that internal pattern parameters can be learned in conjunction with other model potentials to minimize expected loss, and (b) learning an image-dependent mapping that encourages or inhibits patterns depending on image features. We also explore varying how multiple patterns are composed, and learning convolutional patterns. Quantitative results on challenging highly variable datasets show that the joint learning and image-dependent high order potentials can improve performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".