Predicting visual attention using gamma kernels
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
Saliency measures are a popular way to predict visual attention. However, saliency is normally tested on sets of single resolution images that are unlike what the human vision system sees. We propose a new saliency measure based on convolving images with 2D gamma kernels which function as a comparison between a center and a surrounding neighborhood. The two parameters in the gamma kernel provide an ideal way to change the size of both the center and the surrounding neighborhood, which makes finding saliency at different scales simple and fast. We test the new saliency measure on both the CAT2000 database and the Toronto database and compare the results with other simple saliency methods. In addition, we test the methods on a foveated version of the Toronto database to test whether these methods perform well in a fixation system similar to the human vision system. Gamma saliency is shown to both perform better and compute faster than the competing methods in both the standard databases and the foveated version.
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