Unsupervized Image Clustering With SIFT-Based Soft-Matching Affinity Propagation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that affinity propagation can perform exemplar-based unsupervised image clustering by taking as input similarities between pairs of images and producing a set of exemplars that best represent the images, and then assigning each nonexemplar image to its most appropriate exemplar. However, the clustering performance of affinity propagation is largely limited by the adopted similarity between any pair of images. As the scale invariant feature transform (SIFT) has been widely employed to extract image features, the nonmetric similarity between any pair of images was proposed by “hard” matching of SIFT features (e.g., counting the number of matching SIFT features). In this letter, we notice, however, that the decision of hard matching of SIFT features is binary, which is not necessary for deriving similarities. Hence, we propose a novel measure of similarities by replacing hard matching with the so-called soft matching. Experimental examples show that significant performance gains can be achieved by the resulting affinity propagation algorithm.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".