MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891717660 · doi:10.48448/3nrj-te42

Improving Open Set Recognition via Visual Prompts Distilled from Common-Sense Knowledge

2024· other· en· W6891717660 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUnderline Science Inc. · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)VisualizationOpen setVisual perceptionClass (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open Set Recognition (OSR) poses significant challenges in distinguishing known from unknown classes. In OSR, the overconfidence problem has become a persistent obstacle, where visual recognition models often misclassify unknown objects as known objects with high confidence. This issue stems from the fact that visual recognition models often lack the integration of common-sense knowledge, a feature that is naturally present in language-based models but lacking in visual recognition systems. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to enhance OSR performance by distilling common-sense knowledge into visual prompts. Utilizing text prompts that embody common-sense knowledge about known classes, the proposed visual prompt is learned by extracting semantic common-sense features and aligning them with image features from visual recognition models. The unique aspect of this work is the training of individual visual prompts for each class to encapsulate this common-sense knowledge. Our methodology is model-agnostic, capable of enhancing OSR across various visual recognition models, and computationally light as it focuses solely on training the visual prompts. This research introduces a method for addressing OSR, aiming at a more systematic integration of visual recognition systems with common-sense knowledge. The obtained results indicate an enhancement in recognition accuracy, suggesting the applicability of this approach in practical settings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.076

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.315 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnderline Science Inc.French-language works237,207