Characterising and dissecting human perception of scene complexity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans can effortlessly assess the complexity of the visual stimuli they encounter. However, our understanding of how we do this, and the relevant factors that result in our perception of scene complexity remain unclear; especially for the natural scenes in which we are constantly immersed. We introduce several new datasets to further understanding of human perception of scene complexity. Our first dataset (VISC-C) contains 800 scenes and 800 corresponding two-dimensional complexity annotations gathered from human observers, allowing exploration for how complexity perception varies across a scene. Our second dataset, (VISC-CI) consists of inverted scenes (reflection on the horizontal axis) with corresponding complexity maps, collected from human observers. Inverting images in this fashion is associated with destruction of semantic scene characteristics when viewed by humans, and hence allows analysis of the impact of semantics on perceptual complexity. We analysed perceptual complexity from both a single-score and a two-dimensional perspective, by evaluating a set of calculable and observable perceptual features based upon grounded psychological research (clutter, symmetry, entropy and openness). We considered these factors' relationship to complexity via hierarchical regressions analyses, tested the efficacy of various neural models against our datasets, and validated our perceptual features against a large and varied complexity dataset consisting of nearly 5000 images. Our results indicate that both global image properties and semantic features are important for complexity perception. We further verified this by combining identified perceptual features with the output of a neural network predictor capable of extracting semantics, and found that we could increase the amount of explained human variance in complexity beyond that of low-level measures alone. Finally, we dissect our best performing prediction network, determining that artificial neurons learn to extract both global image properties and semantic details from scenes for complexity prediction. Based on our experimental results, we propose the "dual information" framework of complexity perception, hypothesising that humans rely on both low-level image features and high-level semantic content to evaluate the complexity of images.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".