MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161479133 · doi:10.1109/ist.2005.1594536

Statistical similarity measures in image retrieval systems with categorization & amp; block based partition

2006· article· en· W2161479133 on OpenAlexaff
Md Mahmudur Rahman, Paritosh Bhattacharya, Bipin C. Desai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBhattacharyya distancePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMahalanobis distanceImage retrievalFeature vectorMathematicsComputer scienceSimilarity measureVisual WordImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel approach of similarity matching in image retrieval based on the distribution of joint feature vectors of color and texture features. Mean vectors and covariance matrices are computed from feature distributions of training samples with known categories and from individual images with varying partitions on the assumption that, distributions are multivariate Gaussian. Statistical distance measures utilize these parameters in similarity matching functions to minimize the probability of retrieval error. For category specific retrieval, a multi-class support vector machine (SVM) is trained on the samples to predict the categories of query and database images. Based on the online prediction, precompiled category specific statistical parameters are utilized in similarity measure functions. For partition specific retrieval, individual images are partitioned into non-overlapping blocks of different sizes and a joint feature vector of color and texture features are extracted from each block to generate the distribution and estimate the parameters. Experimental results on a generic image database with ground truth are reported. Performances of two statistical distance measures, namely Bhattacharyya and Mahalanobis are evaluated and compared with Euclidian distance measure, which show the effectiveness of the proposed technique.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207