Tagging Like Humans: Diverse and Distinct Image Annotation
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
In this work we propose a new automatic image annotation model, dubbed diverse and distinct image annotation (D2IA). The generative model D2IA is inspired by the ensemble of human annotations, which create semantically relevant, yet distinct and diverse tags. In D2IA, we generate a relevant and distinct tag subset, in which the tags are relevant to the image contents and semantically distinct to each other, using sequential sampling from a determinantal point process (DPP) model. Multiple such tag subsets that cover diverse semantic aspects or diverse semantic levels of the image contents are generated by randomly perturbing the DPP sampling process. We leverage a generative adversarial network (GAN) model to train D2IA. Extensive experiments including quantitative and qualitative comparisons, as well as human subject studies, on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed model can produce more diverse and distinct tags than the state-of-the-arts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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