Segmentation of Maya Hieroglyphs through Fine-Tuned Foundation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of Maya hieroglyphic writing unlocks the rich history of cultural and societal knowledge embedded within this ancient civilization's visual narrative. Machine learning (ML) offers a novel lens through which we can translate these inscriptions, with the potential to allow non-specialists access to reading these texts and to aid in the decipherment of those hieroglyphs which continue to elude comprehensive interpretation. Toward this, we leverage a large foundation model to segment Maya hieroglyphs from an open-source digital library dedicated to Maya artifacts. Despite the initial promise of publicly available foundation segmentation models, their effectiveness in accurately segmenting Maya hieroglyphs was initially limited. Addressing this challenge, our study involved the meticulous curation of image and label pairs with the assistance of experts in Maya art and history, enabling the fine-tuning of these foundation models. This process significantly enhanced model performance, illustrating the potential of fine-tuning approaches and the value of our expanding dataset. We plan to open-source this dataset for encouraging future research, and eventually to help make the hieroglyphic texts legible to a broader community, particularly for Maya heritage community members.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".