Reinforcement Learning for Visual Object Detection
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
One of the most widely used strategies for visual object detection is based on exhaustive spatial hypothesis search. While methods like sliding windows have been successful and effective for many years, they are still brute-force, independent of the image content and the visual category being searched. In this paper we present principled sequential models that accumulate evidence collected at a small set of image locations in order to detect visual objects effectively. By formulating sequential search as reinforcement learning of the search policy (including the stopping condition), our fully trainable model can explicitly balance for each class, specifically, the conflicting goals of exploration - sampling more image regions for better accuracy -, and exploitation - stopping the search efficiently when sufficiently confident about the target's location. The methodology is general and applicable to any detector response function. We report encouraging results in the PASCAL VOC 2012 object detection test set showing that the proposed methodology achieves almost two orders of magnitude speed-up over sliding window methods.
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