MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991111171 · doi:10.1016/j.cviu.2020.103045

Open cross-domain visual search

2020· preprint· en· W2991111171 on OpenAlexfundno aff
William Thong, Pascal Mettes, Cees G. M. Snoek

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Vision and Image Understanding · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVisual searchComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)SketchSemantic spaceSpace (punctuation)Function (biology)Semantic searchMultidimensional scalingArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalMachine learningSearch engineAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses cross-domain visual search, where visual queries retrieve category samples from a different domain. For example, we may want to sketch an airplane and retrieve photographs of airplanes. Despite considerable progress, the search occurs in a closed setting between two pre-defined domains. In this paper, we make the step towards an open setting where multiple visual domains are available. This notably translates into a search between any pair of domains, from a combination of domains or within multiple domains. We introduce a simple – yet effective – approach. We formulate the search as a mapping from every visual domain to a common semantic space, where categories are represented by hyperspherical prototypes. Open cross-domain visual search is then performed by searching in the common semantic space, regardless of which domains are used as source or target. Domains are combined in the common space to search from or within multiple domains simultaneously. A separate training of every domain-specific mapping function enables an efficient scaling to any number of domains without affecting the search performance. We empirically illustrate our capability to perform open cross-domain visual search in three different scenarios. Our approach is competitive with respect to existing closed settings, where we obtain state-of-the-art results on several benchmarks for three sketch-based search 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Vision and Image UnderstandingSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207