MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176028257 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i9.16995

Visual Concept Reasoning Networks

2021· article· en· W3176028257 on OpenAlexaff
Taesup Kim, Sungwoong Kim, Yoshua Bengio

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMerge (version control)ExploitVisual reasoningCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionConvolutional neural networkGraphSegmentationSpatial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningTheoretical computer scienceObject (grammar)Information retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A split-transform-merge strategy has been broadly used as an architectural constraint in convolutional neural networks for visual recognition tasks. It approximates sparsely connected networks by explicitly defining multiple branches to simultaneously learn representations with different visual concepts or properties. Dependencies or interactions between these representations are typically defined by dense and local operations, however, without any adaptiveness or high-level reasoning. In this work, we propose to exploit this strategy and combine it with our Visual Concept Reasoning Networks (VCRNet) to enable reasoning between high-level visual concepts. We associate each branch with a visual concept and derive a compact concept state by selecting a few local descriptors through an attention module. These concept states are then updated by graph-based interaction and used to adaptively modulate the local descriptors. We describe our proposed model by split-transform-attend-interact-modulate-merge stages, which are implemented by opting for a highly modularized architecture. Extensive experiments on visual recognition tasks such as image classification, semantic segmentation, object detection, scene recognition, and action recognition show that our proposed model, VCRNet, consistently improves the performance by increasing the number of parameters by less than 1%.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207