Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CRF is a classical computer vision model which is also useful for deep learning. There are two common CRF types: sparse and dense. Sparse CRF connects only the nearby pixels, while dense CRF has global connectivity. Therefore dense CRF is a more general model, but it is much harder to optimize compared to sparse CRF. In fact, only a certain form of dense CRF is optimized in practice, and even then approximately. We propose a new sparse non-local CRF: it has a sparse number of connections, but it has both local and non-local ones. Like sparse CRF, the total number of connections is small, and our model is easy to optimize exactly. Like dense CRF, our model is more general than sparse CRF due to non-local connections. We show that our sparse non-local CRF can model properties similar to that of the popular Gaussian edge dense CRF. Besides efficiency, another advantage is that our edge weights are less restricted compared to Gaussian edge dense CRF. We design models that take advantage of this flexibility. We also discuss connection of our model to other CRF models. Finally, to prove the usefulness of our model, we evaluate it on the classical application of segmentation from a bounding box and for deep learning based salient object segmentation. We improve state of the art for both applications.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it