Can Contextual Information Improve Scene Classification Performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bag of visual words (BoVW) remains a very competitive representation in the domain of scene classification. In this framework, extracting SIFT descriptors on a dense grid of pixels has shown to lead to a better performance. However, due to the nature of SIFT as an edge-based descriptor, computing SIFT on homogeneous regions might result in non-stable region descriptors. The suggested solution in the literature is ignoring and discarding these regions descriptors from the final image level representation. We argue that homogeneous regions contain valuable scene information if represented appropriately. In such manner, a simple yet effective method to model homogeneous image regions is proposed. We call these models contextual information, where their importance on scene classification is investigated. The final image-level representation is the stacking of feature vectors from homogeneous and non-homogeneous regions. The proposed approach is validated on two de-facto standard databases for scene classification: Fifteen Scene Categories and 67 Indoor Scenes datasets. Experimental results on these two datasets show the effectiveness of the proposed model.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".