Understanding user intention in image retrieval: generalization selection using multiple concept hierarchies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image retrieval is the technique that helps Users to find and retrieve desired images from a huge image database. The user has firstly to formulate a query that expresses his/her needs. This query may appear in textual form as in semantic retrieval (SR), in visual example form as in query by visual example (QBVE), or as a combination of these two forms named query by semantic example (QBSE). The focus of this paper lies in the techniques of analysing queries composed of multiple semantic examples. This is a very challenging task due to the different interpretations that can be drawn from the same query. To solve such a problem, we introduce a model based on Bayesian generalization. In cognitive science, Bayesian generalization, which is the base of most works in literature, is a method that tries to find, in one hierarchy of concepts, the parent concept of a given set of concepts. In addition and instead of using one single concept hierarchy, we propose a generalization so it can be used with multiple hierarchies where each one has a different semantic context and contains several abstraction levels. Our method consists in finding the optimal generalization by, firstly, determining the appropriate concept hierarchy, and then determining the appropriate level of generalization. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that our method, which uses multiple hierarchies, yields better results than those using only one single hierarchy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".