MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461198954 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2016.7727436

Learning a metric for class-conditional KNN

2016· preprint· en· W2461198954 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Jiwoong Im, Graham W. Taylor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Metric (unit)Class (philosophy)Nearest neighbor searchMachine learningScale-invariant feature transformEntropy (arrow of time)Data miningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Naïve Bayes Nearest Neighbour (NBNN) is a simple and effective framework which addresses many of the pitfalls of K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN) classification. It has yielded competitive results on several computer vision benchmarks. Its central tenet is that during NN search, a query is not compared to every example in a database, ignoring class information. Instead, NN searches are performed within each class, generating a score per class. A key problem with NN techniques, including NBNN, is that they fail when the data representation does not capture perceptual (e.g. class-based) similarity. NBNN circumvents this by using independent engineered descriptors (e.g. SIFT). To extend its applicability outside of image-based domains, we propose to learn a metric which captures perceptual similarity. Similar to how Neighbourhood Components Analysis optimizes a differentiable form of KNN classification, we propose “Class Conditional” metric learning (CCML), which optimizes a soft form of the NBNN selection rule. Typical metric learning algorithms learn either a global or local metric. However, our proposed method can be adjusted to a particular level of locality by tuning a single parameter. An empirical evaluation on classification and retrieval tasks demonstrates that our proposed method clearly outperforms existing learned distance metrics across a variety of image and non-image datasets.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207