Leveraging High-Resolution Features for Improved Deep Hashing-based Image Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep hashing techniques have emerged as the predominant approach for efficient image retrieval. Traditionally, these methods utilize pre-trained convolutional neural networks (CNNs) such as AlexNet and VGG-16 as feature extractors. However, the increasing complexity of datasets poses challenges for these backbone architectures in capturing meaningful features essential for effective image retrieval. In this study, we explore the efficacy of employing high-resolution features learned through state-of-the-art techniques for image retrieval tasks. Specifically, we propose a novel methodology that utilizes High-Resolution Networks (HRNets) as the backbone for the deep hashing task, termed High-Resolution Hashing Network (HHNet). Our approach demonstrates superior performance compared to existing methods across all tested benchmark datasets, including CIFAR-10, NUS-WIDE, MS COCO, and ImageNet. This performance improvement is more pronounced for complex datasets, which highlights the need to learn high-resolution features for intricate image retrieval tasks. Furthermore, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of different HRNet configurations and provide insights into the optimal architecture for the deep hashing task
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".