MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125162820 · doi:10.15353/jcvis.v6i1.3540

Comparison of Foveated Downsampling Techniques in Image Recognition

2021· article· en· W3125162820 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Parsa Torabian, Ronak Pradeep, Jeff Orchard, Bryan Tripp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpsamplingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionImage (mathematics)Variable (mathematics)Deep learningObject (grammar)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 Foveation is an important part of human vision, and a number of deep networks have also used foveation. However, there have been few systematic comparisons between foveating and non-foveating deep networks, and between different variable-resolution downsampling methods. Here we define several such methods, and compare their performance on ImageNet recognition with a custom Densenet network. The best variable-resolution method slightly outperforms uniform downsampling. Thus in our experiments, foveation does not substantially help or hinder object recognition in deep networks.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.330
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging SystemsSame topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207