MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951778556 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1112.0059

Local Naive Bayes Nearest Neighbor for Image Classification

2011· preprint· en· W2951778556 on OpenAlexaff
Sancho McCann, David Lowe

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Poolingk-nearest neighbors algorithmArtificial intelligenceNaive Bayes classifierComputer scienceMerge (version control)MathematicsData miningSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present Local Naive Bayes Nearest Neighbor, an improvement to the NBNN image classification algorithm that increases classification accuracy and improves its ability to scale to large numbers of object classes. The key observation is that only the classes represented in the local neighborhood of a descriptor contribute significantly and reliably to their posterior probability estimates. Instead of maintaining a separate search structure for each class, we merge all of the reference data together into one search structure, allowing quick identification of a descriptor's local neighborhood. We show an increase in classification accuracy when we ignore adjustments to the more distant classes and show that the run time grows with the log of the number of classes rather than linearly in the number of classes as did the original. This gives a 100 times speed-up over the original method on the Caltech 256 dataset. We also provide the first head-to-head comparison of NBNN against spatial pyramid methods using a common set of input features. We show that local NBNN outperforms all previous NBNN based methods and the original spatial pyramid model. However, we find that local NBNN, while competitive with, does not beat state-of-the-art spatial pyramid methods that use local soft assignment and max-pooling.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.119 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207