Bibliographic record
Abstract
In content-based image retrieval (CBIR), a set of low-level features are extracted from an image to represent its visual content. Retrieval is performed by image example where a query image is given as input by the user and an appropriate similarity measure is used to find the best matches in the corresponding feature space. This approach suffers from the fact that there is a large discrepancy between the low-level visual features that one can extract from an image and the semantic interpretation of the image’s content that a particular user may have in a given situation. That is, users seek semantic similarity, but we can only provide similarity based on low-level visual features extracted from the raw pixel data, a situation known as the semantic gap. The selection of an appropriate similarity measure is thus an important problem. Since visual content can be represented by different attributes, the combination and importance of each set of features varies according to the user’s semantic intent. Thus, the retrieval strategy should be adaptive so that it can accommodate the preferences of different users. Relevance feedback (RF) learning has been proposed as a technique aimed at reducing the semantic gap. It works by gathering semantic information from user interaction. Based on the user’s feedback on the retrieval results, the retrieval scheme is adjusted. By providing an image similarity measure under human perception, RF learning can be seen as a form of supervised learning that finds relations between high-level semantic interpretations and low-level visual properties. That is, the feedback obtained within a single query session is used to personalize the retrieval strategy and thus enhance retrieval performance. In this chapter we present an overview of CBIR and related work on RF learning. We also present our own previous work on a RF learning-based probabilistic region relevance learning algorithm for automatically estimating the importance of each region in an image based on the user’s semantic intent.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".