MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158702859 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2007.1165

Weighted Pseudometric Discriminatory Power Improvement Using a Bayesian Logistic Regression Model Based on a Variational Method

2007· article· en· W2158702859 on OpenAlexaff
Riadh Ksantini, Djemel Ziou, Bernard Colin, François Dubeau

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsBayesian probabilityStatisticsPattern recognition (psychology)Logistic model treePower (physics)Computer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of a Bayesian logistic regression model to compute the weights of a pseudo-metric, in order to improve its discriminatory capacity and thereby increase image retrieval accuracy. In the proposed Bayesian model, the prior knowledge of the observations is incorporated and the posterior distribution is approximated by a tractable Gaussian form using variational transformation and Jensen's inequality, which allow a fast and straightforward computation of the weights. The pseudo-metric makes use of the compressed and quantized versions of wavelet decomposed feature vectors, and in our previous work, the weights were adjusted by classical logistic regression model. A comparative evaluation of the Bayesian and classical logistic regression models is performed for content-based image retrieval as well as for other classification tasks, in a decontextualized evaluation framework. In this same framework, we compare the Bayesian logistic regression model to some relevant state-of-the-art classification algorithms. Experimental results show that the Bayesian logistic regression model outperforms these linear classification algorithms, and is a significantly better tool than the classical logistic regression model to compute the pseudo-metric weights and improve retrieval and classification performance. Finally, we perform a comparison with results obtained by other retrieval methods.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations31
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207