Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Panoptic Quality metric, developed by Kirillov et al. in 2019, makes object-level precision, recall and F1 measures available for evaluating image segmentation, and more generally any partitioning task, against a gold standard. Panoptic Quality is based on partial isomorphisms between hypothesized and true segmentations. Kirillov et al. desire that functions defining these one-to-one matchings should be simple, interpretable and effectively computable. They show that for t and h, true and hypothesized segments, the condition stating that there are more correct than wrongly predicted pixels, formalized as IoU(t,h)>.5 or equivalently as |t∩h|>.5|t∪h| has these properties. We show that a weaker function, requiring that more than half of the pixels in the hypothesized segment are in the true segment and vice-versa, formalized as |t∩h|>.5|t| and |t∩h|>.5|h|, is not only sufficient but also necessary. With a small proviso, every function defining a partial isomorphism satisfies this condition. We theoretically and empirically compare the two conditions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".