MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297685267 · doi:10.1109/mipr54900.2022.00016

INTERPRETABLE LEARNING-BASED MULTI-MODAL HASHING ANALYSIS FOR MULTI-VIEW FEATURE REPRESENTATION LEARNING

2022· article· en· W4297685267 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Gao, Ling Guan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature learningRepresentation (politics)Feature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceModalPattern recognition (psychology)Similarity (geometry)Semantic featureHash functionMachine learningNatural language processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, an interpretable learning-based multi-modal hashing analysis (ILMMHA) model is proposed with appli-cation to multi-view feature representation learning. In the proposed model, a cascade network structure is first utilized to reveal the intrinsically semantic representation of input variables. Then, a multi-modal hashing (MMH) method is integrated with the explored semantic representation, gener-ating an interpretable learning-based model for multi-view feature representation. Since MMH is capable of measuring semantic similarity across multiple variables jointly, it provides a natural link between the explored intrinsically semantic representation and its similarity across multi-modal data/information. Benefiting from integration of the cascade structure and MMH, the ILMMHA model leads to a new multi-view feature representation of high quality. To demonstrate the effectiveness and generic nature of the ILMMHA model, we conduct experiments on the cross-modal based audio-visual emotion and text-image recognition tasks, respectively. Experimental results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed model on multi-view feature representation learning.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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