MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Learning a Discriminative Grassmannian Neural Network for Visual Classification

2025· article· W4416250486 on OpenAlexaff
Rui Wang, Tianyang Xu, Xiaojun Wu, Umapada Pal, J. Kittler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersResearch and DevelopmentFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesMinistry of EducationNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGrassmannianDiscriminative modelPattern recognition (psychology)Metric (unit)Subspace topologyArtificial neural networkMatching (statistics)Similarity (geometry)Ambiguity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning representations on the Grassmannian manifold is popular in quite a few visual classification tasks. With the development of deep learning techniques, several neural networks have recently emerged for processing subspace data. However, the diversely changed appearance of the signal data (video clips and image sets), makes it impossible for the existing Grassmannian networks (GrasNets) that rely on a single cross-entropy loss for end-to-end training to learn effective geometric representations, especially for complicated visual scenarios. To solve this problem, a Riemannian triplet loss-based Riemannian metric learning mechanism is introduced to the original GrasNet, which can explicitly encode and learn the characteristics of the intra- and inter-class data distributions conveyed by the input data during network training. Additionally, given the existence of intra-class diversity and inter-class ambiguity of the input data, we propose a hard sample reward strategy (HSR) to further improve the discriminability of the learned network embedding. Extensive experimental results obtained on four benchmarking datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace recognition and analysisFrench-language works237,207