Learning illumination- and orientation-invariant representations of objects throughtemporal association
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
As the orientation or illumination of an object changes so does its appearance. This paper considers how observers are nonetheless able to recognize objects that have undergone such changes. In particular the paper tests the hypothesis that observers rely on temporal correlations between different object views to decide whether they are views of the same object or not. In a series of experiments subjects were shown a sequence of views representing a slowly transforming object. Testing revealed that subjects had formed object representations which were directly influenced by the temporal characteristics of the training views. In particular, introducing spurious correlations between views of different people's heads caused subjects to regard those views as being of a single person. This rapid and robust overriding of basic generalization processes supports the view that our recognition system tracks the correlated appearance of views of objects across time. Such view associations appear to allow the visual system to solve the view invariance problem without recourse to complex illumination models for extracting 3D form, or the use of the image plane transformations required to make appearance-based comparisons.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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