Mitigating the Hubness Problem for Zero-Shot Learning of 3D Objects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of advanced 3D sensors has enabled many objects to be captured in the wild at a large scale, and a 3D object recognition system may therefore encounter many objects for which the system has received no training. Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL) approaches can assist such systems in recognizing previously unseen objects. Applying ZSL to 3D point cloud objects is an emerging topic in the area of 3D vision, however, a significant problem that ZSL often suffers from is the so-called hubness problem, which is when a model is biased to predict only a few particular labels for most of the test instances. We observe that this hubness problem is even more severe for 3D recognition than for 2D recognition. One reason for this is that in 2D one can use pre-trained networks trained on large datasets like ImageNet, which produces high-quality features. However, in the 3D case there are no such large-scale, labelled datasets available for pre-training which means that the extracted 3D features are of poorer quality which, in turn, exacerbates the hubness problem. In this paper, we therefore propose a loss to specifically address the hubness problem. Our proposed method is effective for both Zero-Shot and Generalized Zero-Shot Learning, and we perform extensive evaluations on the challenging datasets ModelNet40, ModelNet10, McGill and SHREC2015. A new state-of-the-art result for both zero-shot tasks in the 3D case is established.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".