DualNet: Learn Complementary Features for Image Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work we propose a novel framework named Dual-Net aiming at learning more accurate representation for image recognition. Here two parallel neural networks are coordinated to learn complementary features and thus a wider network is constructed. Specifically, we logically divide an end-to-end deep convolutional neural network into two functional parts, i.e., feature extractor and image classifier. The extractors of two subnetworks are placed side by side, which exactly form the feature extractor of DualNet. Then the two-stream features are aggregated to the final classifier for overall classification, while two auxiliary classifiers are appended behind the feature extractor of each subnetwork to make the separately learned features discriminative alone. The complementary constraint is imposed by weighting the three classifiers, which is indeed the key of DualNet. The corresponding training strategy is also proposed, consisting of iterative training and joint fine tuning, to make the two subnetworks cooperate well with each other. Finally, DualNet based on the well-known CaffeNet, VGGNet, NIN and ResNet are thoroughly investigated and experimentally evaluated on multiple datasets including CIFAR-100, Stanford Dogs and UEC FOOD-100. The results demonstrate that DualNet can really help learn more accurate image representation, and thus result in higher accuracy for recognition. In particular, the performance on CIFAR-100 is state-of-the-art compared to the recent works.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".