Deep Learning for Instance Retrieval: A Survey
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
In recent years a vast amount of visual content has been generated and shared from many fields, such as social media platforms, medical imaging, and robotics. This abundance of content creation and sharing has introduced new challenges, particularly that of searching databases for similar content - Content Based Image Retrieval (CBIR) - a long-established research area in which improved efficiency and accuracy are needed for real-time retrieval. Artificial intelligence has made progress in CBIR and has significantly facilitated the process of instance search. In this survey we review recent instance retrieval works that are developed based on deep learning algorithms and techniques, with the survey organized by deep feature extraction, feature embedding and aggregation methods, and network fine-tuning strategies. Our survey considers a wide variety of recent methods, whereby we identify milestone work, reveal connections among various methods and present the commonly used benchmarks, evaluation results, common challenges, and propose promising future directions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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