Experiments on Visual Information Extraction with the Faces of Wikipedia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a series of visual information extraction experiments using the Faces of Wikipedia database - a new resource that we release into the public domain for both recognition and extraction research containing over 50,000 identities and 60,000 disambiguated images of faces. We compare different techniques for automatically extracting the faces corresponding to the subject of a Wikipedia biography within the images appearing on the page. Our top performing approach is based on probabilistic graphical models and uses the text of Wikipedia pages, similarities of faces as well as various other features of the document, meta-data and image files. Our method resolves the problem jointly for all detected faces on a page. While our experiments focus on extracting faces from Wikipedia biographies, our approach is easily adapted to other types of documents and multiple documents. We focus on Wikipedia because the content is a Creative Commons resource and we provide our database to the community including registered faces, hand labeled and automated disambiguations, processed captions, meta data and evaluation protocols. Our best probabilistic extraction pipeline yields an expected average accuracy of 77\% compared to image only and text only baselines which yield 63\% and 66\% respectively.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".