Learning Where to Attend with Deep Architectures for Image Tracking
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
We discuss an attentional model for simultaneous object tracking and recognition that is driven by gaze data. Motivated by theories of perception, the model consists of two interacting pathways, identity and control, intended to mirror the what and where pathways in neuroscience models. The identity pathway models object appearance and performs classification using deep (factored)-restricted Boltzmann machines. At each point in time, the observations consist of foveated images, with decaying resolution toward the periphery of the gaze. The control pathway models the location, orientation, scale, and speed of the attended object. The posterior distribution of these states is estimated with particle filtering. Deeper in the control pathway, we encounter an attentional mechanism that learns to select gazes so as to minimize tracking uncertainty. Unlike in our previous work, we introduce gaze selection strategies that operate in the presence of partial information and on a continuous action space. We show that a straightforward extension of the existing approach to the partial information setting results in poor performance, and we propose an alternative method based on modeling the reward surface as a gaussian process. This approach gives good performance in the presence of partial information and allows us to expand the action space from a small, discrete set of fixation points to a continuous domain.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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