MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401024462 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2024/103

Dual-level Fuzzy Learning with Patch Guidance for Image Ordinal Regression

2024· article· en· W4401024462 on OpenAlexaff
Bo Du

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNatural Science Foundation of Hubei ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceTransformerComputer visionArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringVoltageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ordinal regression bridges regression and classification by assigning objects to ordered classes. While human experts rely on discriminative patch-level features for decisions, current approaches are limited by the availability of only image-level ordinal labels, overlooking fine-grained patch-level characteristics. In this paper, we propose a Dual-level Fuzzy Learning with Patch Guidance framework, named DFPG that learns precise feature-based grading boundaries from ambiguous ordinal labels, with patch-level supervision. Specifically, we propose patch-labeling and filtering strategies to enable the model to focus on patch-level features exclusively with only image-level ordinal labels available. We further design a dual-level fuzzy learning module, which leverages fuzzy logic to quantitatively capture and handle label ambiguity from both patch-wise and channel-wise perspectives. Extensive experiments on various image ordinal regression datasets demonstrate the superiority of our proposed method, further confirming its ability in distinguishing samples from difficult-to-classify categories. The code is available at https://github.com/ZJUMAI/DFPG-ord.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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