MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211930213 · doi:10.5244/c.35.66

A Probabilistic Hard Attention Model For Sequentially Observed Scenes

2021· preprint· en· W3211930213 on OpenAlexaff
Samrudhdhi B. Rangrej, James J. Clark

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservabilityComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Probabilistic logicImage (mathematics)Classifier (UML)AutoencoderMachine learningMathematicsDeep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A visual hard attention model actively selects and observes a sequence of subregions in an image to make a prediction. 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 initially but instead sensed gradually through a series of partial observations. In this paper, we design an efficient hard attention model for classifying such sequentially observed scenes. The presented model never observes an image completely. To select informative regions under partial observability, the model uses Bayesian Optimal Experiment Design. First, it synthesizes the features of the unobserved regions based on the already observed regions. Then, it uses the predicted features to estimate the expected information gain (EIG) attained, should various regions be attended. Finally, the model attends to the actual content on the location where the EIG mentioned above is maximum. The model uses a) a recurrent feature aggregator to maintain a recurrent state, b) a linear classifier to predict the class label, c) a Partial variational autoencoder to predict the features of unobserved regions. We use normalizing flows in Partial VAE to handle multi-modality in the feature-synthesis problem. We train our model using a differentiable objective and test it on five datasets. Our model gains 2-10% higher accuracy than the baseline models when both have seen only a couple of glimpses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207