Quantifying the Impact of Complementary Visual and Textual Cues Under Image Captioning
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
Describing an image with natural sentence without human involvement requires knowledge of both image processing and Natural Language Processing (NLP). Most of the existing works are based on unimodal representations of the visual and textual contents using an Encoder-Decoder (EnDec) Deep Neural Network (DNN), where the input images are encoded using Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and the caption is generated by a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN). This paper dives into a basic image captioning model to quantify the impact of multimodal representation of the visual and textual cues. The multimodal representation is carried out via an early fusion of encoded visual cues from different CNNs, along with combined textual features from different word embedding techniques. The resultant of the multimodal representation of the visual and textual cues are employed to train a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM)-based baseline caption generator to quantify the impact of various levels of complementary feature mutations. The ablation study involves two different CNN feature extractors and two types of textual feature extractors, shows that exploitation of the complementary information outperforms the unimodal representations significantly with endurable timing overhead.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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