A Probabilistic Hard Attention Model For Sequentially Observed Scenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".