MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978562747 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.01833

Few-Shot Abstract Visual Reasoning With Spectral Features

2019· preprint· en· W2978562747 on OpenAlexaff
Tanner Bohn, Yining Hu, Charles X. Ling

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprocessorArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceVisual reasoningTask (project management)Image (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)One shotMachine learningShot (pellet)Computer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an image preprocessing technique capable of improving the performance of few-shot classifiers on abstract visual reasoning tasks. Many visual reasoning tasks with abstract features are easy for humans to learn with few examples but very difficult for computer vision approaches with the same number of samples, despite the ability for deep learning models to learn abstract features. Same-different (SD) problems represent a type of visual reasoning task requiring knowledge of pattern repetition within individual images, and modern computer vision approaches have largely faltered on these classification problems, even when provided with vast amounts of training data. We propose a simple method for solving these problems based on the insight that removing peaks from the amplitude spectrum of an image is capable of emphasizing the unique parts of the image. When combined with several classifiers, our method performs well on the SD SVRT tasks with few-shot learning, improving upon the best comparable results on all tasks, with average absolute accuracy increases nearly 40% for some classifiers. In particular, we find that combining Relational Networks with this image preprocessing approach improves their performance from chance-level to over 90% accuracy on several SD tasks.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207