Target-directed attention: Sequential decision-making for gaze planning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely agreed that efficient visual search requires the integration of target-driven top-down information and image-driven bottom-up information. Yet the problem of gaze planning - that is, selecting the next best gaze location given the current observations - remains largely unsolved. We propose a probabilistic system that models the gaze sequence as a finite-horizon Bayesian sequential decision process. Direct policy search is used to reason about the next best gaze locations. The system integrates bottom-up saliency information, top-down target knowledge and additional context information through principled Bayesian priors. This results in proposal gaze locations that depend not only the featural visual saliency, but also on prior knowledge and the spatial likelihood of locating the target. The system has been implemented using state-of- the-art object detectors and evaluated on a real-world dataset by comparing it to gaze sequences proposed by a pure bottom-up saliency-based process and to an object detection approach that analyzes the full image. The target-directed attention system is shown to result in higher object detection precision than both competitors, to attend to more relevant targets than the bottom-up attention system, and to require significantly less computation time than the exhaustive approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it