MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127815213 · doi:10.1162/neco_a_00084

Suitability of V1 Energy Models for Object Classification

2010· article· en· W2127815213 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

VenueNeural Computation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsCategorizationComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)Computational modelArtificial intelligenceComputationComputational complexity theoryMachine learningFilter (signal processing)Simple cellModels of neural computationCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionObject (grammar)Artificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulations of cortical computation have often focused on networks built from simplified neuron models similar to rate models hypothesized for V1 simple cells. However, physiological research has revealed that even V1 simple cells have surprising complexity. Our computational simulations explore the effect of this complexity on the visual system's ability to solve simple tasks, such as the categorization of shapes and digits, after learning from a limited number of examples. We use recently proposed high-throughput methodology to explore what axes of modeling complexity are useful in these categorization tasks. We find that complex cell rate models learn to categorize objects better than simple cell models, and without incurring extra computational expense. We find that the squaring of linear filter responses leads to better performance. We find that several other components of physiologically derived models do not yield better performance.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.232 · 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