Video Relationship Detection Using Mixture of Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine comprehension of visual information from images and videos by neural networks suffers from two limitations: (1) the computational and inference gap in vision and language to accurately determine which object a given agent acts on and then to represent it by language, and (2) the shortcoming in stability and generalization of the classifier trained by a single, monolithic neural network. To address these limitations, we propose MoE-VRD, a novel approach to visual relationship detection via a mixture of experts. MoE-VRD recognizes language triplets in the form of atuple to extract the relationship between subject, predicate, and object from visual processing. Since detecting a relationship between a subject (acting) and the object(s) (being acted upon) requires that the action be recognized, we base our network on recent work in visual relationship detection. To address the limitations associated with single monolithic networks, our mixture of experts is based on multiple small models, whose outputs are aggregated. That is, each expert in MoE-VRD is a visual relationship learner capable of detecting and tagging objects. MoE-VRD employs an ensemble of networks while preserving the complexity and computational cost of the original underlying visual relationship model by applying a sparsely-gated mixture of experts, which allows for conditional computation and a significant gain in neural network capacity. We show that the conditional computation capabilities and massive ability to scale the mixture-of-experts leads to an approach to the visual relationship detection problem which outperforms the state-of-the-art.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".