MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131066419 · doi:10.1109/iccvw69036.2025.00077

HAPPI: Hyperbolic Hierarchical Part Prototypes for Image Recognition

2025· article· W7131066419 on OpenAlexaff
Hooman Vaseli, Victoria Wu, Nima Kondori, Nguyen Nhat Minh To, Andrea Fung, Ang Nan Gu, Purang Abolmaesumi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminative modelHierarchyAggregate (composite)Euclidean geometryImage (mathematics)Feature (linguistics)Key (lock)Convolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prototypical part networks have gained prominence in com-puter vision due to their inherent interpretability, enabling decisions based on representative part features without post-hoc explanations. However, existing prototypical net-works learn part-based features in flat Euclidean space, yet they could better capture the natural hierarchical relationships within image features to enhance performance on tasks requiring structural understanding. To address this opportunity, we propose HAPPI (Hierarchical And Part Prototypical Image recognition), a framework that lever-ages hyperbolic geometry to organize prototypical part fea-tures hierarchically within a Lorentzian manifold. By ar-ranging localized generic features near the hyperboloid origin and broader specific features farther away, HAPPI learns generic prototypes for defining local patterns and specific prototypes that aggregate broader discriminative cues, effectively capturing hierarchy in image data. Our approach is model-agnostic and can be applied to various prototypical neural networks and backbones. We evaluate HAPPI on several baselines and datasets, showing that hy-perbolic prototypes match or outperform Euclidean ones while adding interpretability. Qualitative results reveal that generic prototypes highlight localized, class-defining traits, while specific prototypes capture broader patterns across larger regions, enabling differentiation through both lo-cal and contextual features. Our code can be found at http://github.com/DeepRCL/HAPPI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207