How a General-Purpose Commonsense Ontology can Improve Performance of Learning-Based Image Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The knowledge representation community has built general-purpose ontologies which contain large amounts of commonsense knowledge over relevant aspects of the world, including useful visual information, e.g.: "a ball is used by a football player", "a tennis player is located at a tennis court". Current state-of-the-art approaches for visual recognition do not exploit these rule-based knowledge sources. Instead, they learn recognition models directly from training examples. In this paper, we study how general-purpose ontologies—specifically, MIT's ConceptNet ontology—can improve the performance of state-of-the-art vision systems. As a testbed, we tackle the problem of sentence-based image retrieval. Our retrieval approach incorporates knowledge from ConceptNet on top of a large pool of object detectors derived from a deep learning technique. In our experiments, we show that ConceptNet can improve performance on a common benchmark dataset. Key to our performance is the use of the ESPGAME dataset to select visually relevant relations from ConceptNet. Consequently, a main conclusion of this work is that general-purpose commonsense ontologies improve performance on visual reasoning tasks when properly filtered to select meaningful visual relations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".