Going from Image to Video Saliency: Augmenting Image Salience with Dynamic Attentional Push
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 present a novel method to incorporate the recent advent in static saliency models to predict the saliency in videos. Our model augments the static saliency models with the Attentional Push effect of the photographer and the scene actors in a shared attention setting. We demonstrate that not only it is imperative to use static Attentional Push cues, noticeable performance improvement is achievable by learning the time-varying nature of Attentional Push. We propose a multi-stream Convolutional Long Short-Term Memory network (ConvLSTM) structure which augments state-of-the-art in static saliency models with dynamic Attentional Push. Our network contains four pathways, a saliency pathway and three Attentional Push pathways. The multi-pathway structure is followed by an augmenting convnet that learns to combine the complementary and time-varying outputs of the ConvLSTMs by minimizing the relative entropy between the augmented saliency and viewers fixation patterns on videos. We evaluate our model by comparing the performance of several augmented static saliency models with state-of-the-art in spatiotemporal saliency on three largest dynamic eye tracking datasets, HOLLYWOOD2, UCF-Sport and DIEM. Experimental results illustrates that solid performance gain is achievable using the proposed methodology.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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