MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164371126 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2005.139

Generic model abstraction from examples

2005· article· en· W2164371126 on OpenAlexafffund
Yakov Keselman, Sven Dickinson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersArmy Research OfficeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceAdjacency listAbstractionSemantic gapArtificial intelligenceRepresentation (politics)Theoretical computer scienceBridging (networking)GraphPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Computer visionAlgorithmImage retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recognition community has typically avoided bridging the representational gap between traditional, low-level image features and generic models. Instead, the gap has been artificially eliminated by either bringing the image closer to the models using simple scenes containing idealized, textureless objects or by bringing the models closer to the images using 3D CAD model templates or 2D appearance model templates. In this paper, we attempt to bridge the representational gap for the domain of model acquisition. Specifically, we address the problem of automatically acquiring a generic 2D view-based class model from a set of images, each containing an exemplar object belonging to that class. We introduce a novel graph-theoretical formulation of the problem in which we search for the lowest common abstraction among a set of lattices, each representing the space of all possible region groupings in a region adjacency graph representation of an input image. The problem is intractable and we present a shortest path-based approximation algorithm to yield an efficient solution. We demonstrate the approach on real imagery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations79
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207