Achieving Explainability in a Visual Hard Attention Model through Content Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A visual hard attention model actively selects and observes a sequence of subregions in an image to make a prediction. Unlike in the deep convolution network, in hard attention it is explainable which regions of the image contributed to the prediction. However, the attention policy used by the model to select these regions is not explainable. The majority of hard attention models determine the attention-worthy regions by first analyzing a complete image. However, it may be the case that the entire image is not available in the beginning but instead sensed gradually through a series of partial observations. In this paper, we design an efficient hard attention model for classifying partially observable scenes. The attention policy used by our model is explainable and non-parametric. The model estimates expected information gain (EIG) obtained from attending various regions by predicting their content ahead of time. It compares EIG using Bayesian Optimal Experiment Design and attends to the region with maximum EIG. We train our model with a differentiable objective, optimized using gradient descent, and test it on several datasets. The performance of our model is comparable to or better than the baseline models.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".