Cross-Modal and Uni-Modal Soft-Label Alignment for Image-Text Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current image-text retrieval methods have demonstrated impressive performance in recent years. However, they still face two problems: the inter-modal matching missing problem and the intra-modal semantic loss problem. These problems can significantly affect the accuracy of image-text retrieval. To address these challenges, we propose a novel method called Cross-modal and Uni-modal Soft-label Alignment (CUSA). Our method leverages the power of uni-modal pre-trained models to provide soft-label supervision signals for the image-text retrieval model. Additionally, we introduce two alignment techniques, Cross-modal Soft-label Alignment (CSA) and Uni-modal Soft-label Alignment (USA), to overcome false negatives and enhance similarity recognition between uni-modal samples. Our method is designed to be plug-and-play, meaning it can be easily applied to existing image-text retrieval models without changing their original architectures. Extensive experiments on various image-text retrieval models and datasets, we demonstrate that our method can consistently improve the performance of image-text retrieval and achieve new state-of-the-art results. Furthermore, our method can also boost the uni-modal retrieval performance of image-text retrieval models, enabling it to achieve universal retrieval. The code and supplementary files can be found at https://github.com/lerogo/aaai24_itr_cusa.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".