MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220677388 · doi:10.1117/1.jei.31.2.023003

Efficient color image retrieval method using deep stacked sparse autoencoder

2022· article· en· W4220677388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mandar Kale, Sudipta Mukhopadhyay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electronic Imaging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAutoencoderImage retrievalSoftmax functionPattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningContent-based image retrievalFeature extractionMachine learningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent advancement in deep learning-based approaches vastly outperforms the traditional image descriptors. Deep learning models, such as residual networks (ResNet), are well known for finding salient features. Although effective, high-level description often has a high dimensionality that increases computational overhead. The autoencoders find the useful approximation of the input data without losing critical information. Considering this, we propose a content-based image retrieval system for natural color images using a deep stacked sparse autoencoder (DSSA). The DSSA model learns latent features in an unsupervised way from the high-level description obtained using ResNet. The DSSA model achieves a nearly 50% reduction in size compared with the full-length features for the simple distance-based retrieval approach while increasing accuracy. The image retrieval efficacy of the learned latent features is also evaluated for two classifier-based methods using a Softmax classifier. Further, this study investigates the impact of unsupervised feature learning on retrieval using three benchmark natural color image databases of varying complexities, viz., Corel-1K, Corel-10K, and Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR)-10. The latent features learned by the DSSA model with the fuzzy class membership-based retrieval method achieve promising improvements and yield a highly competitive retrieval performance with the large-size CIFAR-10 database.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electronic ImagingSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207