MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320531917 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e32835fa73f

A neural computational model for animal’s time-to-collision estimation

2013· article· en· W2320531917 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ling Wang, Dezhong Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMcMaster University
KeywordsCollisionNeuroscienceComputer scienceEstimationAnimal modelArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceBiologyEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The time-to-collision (TTC) is the time elapsed before a looming object hits the subject. An accurate estimation of TTC plays a critical role in the survival of animals in nature and acts as an important factor in artificial intelligence systems that depend on judging and avoiding potential dangers. The theoretic formula for TTC is 1/τ≈θ'/sin θ, where θ and θ' are the visual angle and its variation, respectively, and the widely used approximation computational model is θ'/θ. However, both of these measures are too complex to be implemented by a biological neuronal model. We propose a new simple computational model: 1/τ≈Mθ-P/(θ+Q)+N, where M, P, Q, and N are constants that depend on a predefined visual angle. This model, weighted summation of visual angle model (WSVAM), can achieve perfect implementation through a widely accepted biological neuronal model. WSVAM has additional merits, including a natural minimum consumption and simplicity. Thus, it yields a precise and neuronal-implemented estimation for TTC, which provides a simple and convenient implementation for artificial vision, and represents a potential visual brain mechanism.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207