Recipe recognition with large multimodal food dataset
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with automatic systems for image recipe recognition. For this purpose, we compare and evaluate leading vision-based and text-based technologies on a new very large multimodal dataset (UPMC Food-101) containing about 100,000 recipes for a total of 101 food categories. Each item in this dataset is represented by one image plus textual information. We present deep experiments of recipe recognition on our dataset using visual, textual information and fusion. Additionally, we present experiments with text-based embedding technology to represent any food word in a semantical continuous space. We also compare our dataset features with a twin dataset provided by ETHZ university: we revisit their data collection protocols and carry out transfer learning schemes to highlight similarities and differences between both datasets. Finally, we propose a real application for daily users to identify recipes. This application is a web search engine that allows any mobile device to send a query image and retrieve the most relevant recipes in our dataset.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it