Region-Level Visual Consistency Verification for Large-Scale Partial-Duplicate Image Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most recent large-scale image search approaches build on a bag-of-visual-words model, in which local features are quantized and then efficiently matched between images. However, the limited discriminability of local features and the BOW quantization errors cause a lot of mismatches between images, which limit search accuracy. To improve the accuracy, geometric verification is popularly adopted to identify geometrically consistent local matches for image search, but it is hard to directly use these matches to distinguish partial-duplicate images from non-partial-duplicate images. To address this issue, instead of simply identifying geometrically consistent matches, we propose a region-level visual consistency verification scheme to confirm whether there are visually consistent region (VCR) pairs between images for partial-duplicate search. Specifically, after the local feature matching, the potential VCRs are constructed via mapping the regions segmented from candidate images to a query image by utilizing the properties of the matched local features. Then, the compact gradient descriptor and convolutional neural network descriptor are extracted and matched between the potential VCRs to verify their visual consistency to determine whether they are VCRs. Moreover, two fast pruning algorithms are proposed to further improve efficiency. Extensive experiments demonstrate the proposed approach achieves higher accuracy than the state of the art and provide comparable efficiency for large-scale partial-duplicate 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".