MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294985537 · doi:10.1109/icmla.2015.77

A Finite Gamma Mixture Model-Based Discriminative Learning Frameworks

2015· article· en· W2294985537 on OpenAlexaff
Faisal R. Al-Osaim, Nizar Bouguila

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminative modelGenerative grammarComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningGenerative modelCategorizationGenerative DesignClass (philosophy)Object (grammar)Pattern recognition (psychology)Support vector machineContextual image classificationSet (abstract data type)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well-known that classification tasks can be approached using either generative models or discriminative ones. While the goal of generative approaches is to learn class-conditional densities, the main goal of discriminative techniques is to learn decision boundaries directly without taking into account class-conditional densities. In classic supervised learning, we would usually represent a given object (an image, for instance) by a vector of D real-valued features and then select a given generative or discriminative approach to perform classification. In many applications, however, the object can be represented by a set (or) bag of vectors. Recent developments in machine learning, along with powerful computational tools, have enabled researchers to develop more sophisticated models to handle such applications using the so-called hybrid generative discriminative models. The main idea is based on exploiting the advantages of both families of models. Thus, the success of such an approach depends on the choice of an appropriate discriminative technique and a suitable generative one. The goal of this paper is to develop a hybrid generative discriminative framework based on support vector machine and Gamma mixture. In particular, we focus on the generation of kernels when examples (images, for instance) are structured data (i.e. described by sets of vectors) modeled by Gamma mixtures. Experimental results on real-world challenging applications, namely 3D shape class recognition, object categorization, and video event analysis, show the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207