跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1072新增论文
+845其中 AI 相关
+94已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 16:31 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-09 13:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 18:03 — 2026-11-09 18:03(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 16:31最近发现新增版本:2026-11-09 13:22库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-07 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

18,172 已收录论文15,506 AI 相关4,527 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 16:29(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.08655

Scoring, Not Learning: Decomposing Catalog-Consolidation Gains in Web-Scraped Retail Product Recognition

Kaden Leis, Xiang Ma

原文摘要

Retail product catalogs assembled from web image search are cheap to build and pervasively noisy: queries return packaging shots instead of products, and entries proliferate under names that cannot be distinguished visually. Consolidating such a catalog can look like an alternative to scaling the model. We show this is not a comparison between two ways of improving a recognizer, but between improving a recognizer and changing what counts as correct. We study a public archive of 165,769 cheese images across 1,824 query-named entries. A packaging filter and near-duplicate removal reduce it to a 998-class recognition set on one fixed, group-aware split. Canonicalizing entries to their base type (844 classes) raises top-1 accuracy by 4.0 points. Scoring the unchanged model against the merged label space, by summing its predicted probability within each canonical group, recovers +4.27 points with no retraining (+4.25 over six seeds). Retraining on the consolidated catalog then adds -0.10$\pm$0.53, +0.08$\pm$0.65 and -0.10$\pm$0.65 points at 28, 50 and 88 M parameters, indistinguishable from zero at every capacity ($\pm$ is the across-seed standard deviation). That component is specific, not mechanical: random merges with the identical size profile yield only +0.68 points, and the three backbones agree to within 0.1 points. But it is overwhelmingly category coarsening, not alias correction: across the 37 merged groups, type coarsenings supply 94% of the gain and alias collapses only 7%. We also detect no interaction between consolidation and backbone size: tripling backbone parameters is worth +1.50$\pm$0.57 points on the raw catalog and +1.42$\pm$00.44 on the canonical one, a within-seed interaction of -0.08 [-0.79,+0.63]. On this archive, the reported consolidation gain primarily reflects the evaluation label space, and separating that out costs one evaluation

cs.CV · cs.AI