MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Simple Supervised Hashing Algorithm Using Projected Gradient and Oppositional Weights

2021· article· en· W3193727411 on OpenAlexaff
Sobhan Hemati, Mohammad Hadi Mehdizavareh, Morteza Babaie, Shivam Kalra, Hamid R. Tizhoosh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHash functionK-independent hashingBinary codeAlgorithmFeature hashingLocality-sensitive hashingBinary numberArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsHash tablePerfect hash functionDouble hashing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning to hash is generating similarity-preserving binary representations of images, which is, among others, an efficient way for fast image retrieval. Two-step hashing has become a common approach because it simplifies the learning by separating binary code inference from hash function training. However, the binary code inference typically leads to an intractable optimization problem with binary constraints. Different relaxation methods, which are generally based on complicated optimization techniques, have been proposed to address this challenge. In this paper, a simple relaxation scheme based on the projected gradient is proposed. To this end in each iteration, we try to update the optimization variable as if there is no binary constraint and then project the updated solution to the feasible set. We formulate the projection step as fining closet binary matrix to the updated matrix and take advantage of the closed-form solution for the projection step to complete our learning algorithm. Inspired by opposition-based learning, pairwise opposite weights between data points are incorporated to impose a stronger penalty on data instances with higher misclassification probability in the proposed objective function. We show that this simple learning algorithm leads to binary codes that achieve competitive results on both CIFAR-10 and NUS-WIDE datasets compared to state-of-the-art benchmarks.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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