MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959094031 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2015.7299189

How many bits does it take for a stimulus to be salient?

2015· article· en· W1959094031 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSalientArtificial intelligenceENCODEEncoderComputer visionStimulus (psychology)Markov random fieldPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyImage (mathematics)Image segmentationCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual saliency has been shown to depend on the unpredictability of the visual stimulus given its surround. Various previous works have advocated the equivalence between stimulus saliency and uncompressibility. We propose a direct measure of this quantity, namely the number of bits required by an optimal video compressor to encode a given video patch, and show that features derived from this measure are highly predictive of eye fixations. To account for global saliency effects, these are embedded in a Markov random field model. The resulting saliency measure is shown to achieve state-of-the-art accuracy for the prediction of fixations, at a very low computational cost. Since most modern cameras incorporate video encoders, this paves the way for in-camera saliency estimation, which could be useful in a variety of computer vision applications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations110
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207