Pith. sign in

REVIEW

How should we evaluate supervised hashing?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1609.06753 v3 pith:6IGGAHDF submitted 2016-09-21 cs.CV

How should we evaluate supervised hashing?

classification cs.CV
keywords hashingsupervisedcodesclassesmethodsperformanceprotocolsretrieval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Hashing produces compact representations for documents, to perform tasks like classification or retrieval based on these short codes. When hashing is supervised, the codes are trained using labels on the training data. This paper first shows that the evaluation protocols used in the literature for supervised hashing are not satisfactory: we show that a trivial solution that encodes the output of a classifier significantly outperforms existing supervised or semi-supervised methods, while using much shorter codes. We then propose two alternative protocols for supervised hashing: one based on retrieval on a disjoint set of classes, and another based on transfer learning to new classes. We provide two baseline methods for image-related tasks to assess the performance of (semi-)supervised hashing: without coding and with unsupervised codes. These baselines give a lower- and upper-bound on the performance of a supervised hashing scheme.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.