MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320917484 · doi:10.3390/math11040986

Saliency Map Estimation Using a Pixel-Pairwise-Based Unsupervised Markov Random Field Model

2023· article· en· W4320917484 on OpenAlexaff
Max Mignotte

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov random fieldComputer sciencePairwise comparisonBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Posterior probabilityMaximum a posteriori estimationBayesian probabilityMarkov processParametric statisticsAlgorithmMathematicsImage (mathematics)StatisticsMaximum likelihoodImage segmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a Bayesian statistical approach to the saliency map estimation problem. More specifically, we formalize the saliency map estimation issue in the fully automatic Markovian framework. The major and original contribution of the proposed Bayesian–Markov model resides in the exploitation of a pixel pairwise modeling and a likelihood model based on a parametric mixture of two different class-conditional likelihood distributions whose parameters are adaptively and previously estimated for each image. This allows us to adapt our saliency estimation model to the specific characteristics of each image of the dataset and to provide a nearly parameter-free—hence dataset-independent—unsupervised saliency map estimation procedure. In our case, the parameters of the likelihood model are all estimated under the principles of the iterative conditional estimation framework. Once the estimation step is completed, the MPM (maximum posterior marginal) solution of the saliency map (which we show as particularly suitable for this type of estimation), is then estimated by a stochastic sampling scheme approximating the posterior distribution (whose parameters were previously estimated). This unsupervised data-driven Markovian framework overcomes the limitations of current ad hoc or supervised energy-based or Markovian models that often involve many parameters to adapt and that are finely tuned for each different benchmark database. Experimental results show that the proposed algorithm performs favorably against state-of-the-art methods and turns out to be particularly stable across a wide variety of benchmark datasets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFrench-language works237,207