Visual Relationship Detection With Deep Structural Ranking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual relationship detection aims to describe the interactions between pairs of objects. Different from individual object learning tasks, the number of possible relationships are much larger, which makes it hard to explore only based on the visual appearance of objects. In addition, due to the limited human effort, the annotations for visual relationships are usually incomplete which increases the difficulty of model training and evaluation. In this paper, we propose a novel framework, called Deep Structural Ranking, for visual relationship detection. To complement the representation ability of visual appearance, we integrate multiple cues for predicting the relationships contained in an input image. Moreover, we design a new ranking objective function by enforcing the annotated relationships to have higher relevance scores. Unlike previous works, our proposed method can both facilitate the co-occurrence of relationships and mitigate the incompleteness problem. Experimental results show that our proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art on the two widely used datasets. We also demonstrate its superiority in detecting zero-shot relationships.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it