In my last blog post, I gave an overview of the experiments I intend to conduct. Before, I had described the data set and the network architecture. Today, I finally report the first results. However, instead of first talking about the baseline for the mapping task (as originally intended), I will start with the classification results. The reason for this is that it makes more sense to discuss the baseline and my own transfer learning results together, since it is then much easier to compare them. Before I can talk about my own transfer learning results, I however first need to introduce the classification network on which they are based. So let’s focus focus today on the classification results that I was able to obtain with respect to the sketch data sets.
It’s been a while since my last blog post on this subject. The reason for that is simply that the neural network did not give me the results I wanted. But now it seems that I’m on a better track, so let me give you a quick update on what has changed and an overview of my next steps.
In my last blog post, I introduced my current research project: Learning to map raw input images into the shape space obtained from my prior study. Moreover, I talked a bit about the data set I used and the augmentation steps I took to increase the variety of inputs. Today, I want to share with you the network architecture which I plan to use in my experiments. So let’s get started.
This post will be the last one in my mini-series “A Similarity Space for Shapes” about joint work with Margit Scheibel. So far, I have described the overall data set, the correlation between distances and dissimilarities, and the well-shapedness of conceptual regions. Today, I will finally take a look at interpretable directions in this similarity space.
Today, I would like to continue my little series about recent joint work with Margit Scheibel on a psychologically grounded similarity space for shapes. In my first post, I outlined the data set we worked with, and in my second post, we investigated how well the dissimilarity ratings are reflected by distances in the similarity spaces. Today, I’m going to use the categories from our data set to analyze whether conceptual regions are well-formed.