ArticlePloS one2019
A proposal of prior probability-oriented clustering in feature encoding strategies.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Codebook-based feature encodings are a standard framework for image recognition issues. A codebook is usually constructed by clusterings, such as the k-means and the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM). A codebook size is an important factor to decide the trade-off between recognition performance and computational complexity and a traditional framework has the disadvantage to image recognition issues when a large codebook; the number of unique clusters becomes smaller than a designated codebook size because some clusters converge to close positions. This paper focusses on the disadvantage from a perspective of the distribution of prior probabilities and presents a clustering framework including two objectives that are alternated to the k-means and the GMM. Our approach is first evaluated with synthetic clustering datasets to analyze a difference to traditional clustering. In the experiment section, although our approach alternated to the k-means generates similar results to the k-means results, our approach is able to finely tune clusters for our objective. Our approach alternated to the GMM significantly improves our objective and constructs intuitively appropriate clusters, especially for huge and complicatedly distributed samples. In the experiment on image recognition issues, two state-of-the-art encodings, the Fisher Vector (FV) using the GMM and the Vector of Locally Aggregated Descriptors (VLAD) using the k-means, are evaluated with two publicly available image datasets, the Birds and the Butterflies. For the results of the VLAD with our approach, the recognition performances tend to be worse compared to the original VLAD results. On the other hand, the FV using our approach is able to improve the performance, especially in a larger codebook size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.