From 7da9226b4ba2fe70ead06295bce9982d9b4d35ab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vasil Zlatanov <v@skozl.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:20:42 +0000
Subject: Talk about backpacks :D

---
 report/paper.md | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

(limited to 'report')

diff --git a/report/paper.md b/report/paper.md
index 89e260c..17972c5 100755
--- a/report/paper.md
+++ b/report/paper.md
@@ -252,7 +252,11 @@ The difference between the top $k$ accuracies of the two methods gets smaller as
 \end{center}
 \end{figure}
 
-The improved results due to $k$-reciprocal re-ranking can be explained by considering...re-ranking can be explained by considering...  
+The improved results due to $k$-reciprocal re-ranking may be explained by considering that re-ranks based on second order neighbours,
+that is, the neighbours of the neighbours. For neighbours which display identifiable features, such as a backpack or binder that is
+not visible in the query but visible in a close neighbour, the reranking algorithm is able to infer that the strong relationship based on this newly introduced
+feature such as a backpack or folder by the neighbour, uniuqly identify other identities in the gallery with the same feature, and moving them up the rankinlist 
+as a result despite the identifiable feature being hidden in the query. EXAMPLE BACKPACK HERE
 
 
 # Conclusion
-- 
cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2