MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408848666 · doi:10.1145/3712676.3714447

SAMPL: Self-Attention Modelled Patch Learning for Efficient Visual Understanding

2025· article· en· W4408848666 on OpenAlexaff
Zhiming Hu, Salar Hosseini Khorasgani, Weiming Ren, Iqbal Mohomed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsCentre for Social Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionCognitive psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the patch selection problem for efficient transformer-based visual understanding wherein a sampler can be used to drop less informative patches at inference in order to speed up model execution on resource-constrained devices. As no labels are available on the saliency of the patches, existing works either try to solve an auxiliary task of locating distinctive patches or learn a policy network through the global image/video-level supervision. The former approach could drop redundant but important patches while the latter suffers from the weak supervision of a single class label per image/video. In this work, we observe that the attention weights in trained transformer-based models clearly highlight the salient regions in images and videos. Therefore, we propose a learned patch sampling framework called SAMPL that utilizes the attention weights as fine-grained patch-level supervision to learn a lightweight policy network for patch selection. To train SAMPL end-to-end with the transformer-based models, we introduce a new loss function based on the REINFORCE algorithm to match the distribution of patch selection probabilities and the attention scores. Experimental results on ImageNet, UCF101, Something-Something v2 and Kinetics-400 show that SAMPL can effectively increase the throughput by at least 1.5× while achieving competitive classification accuracy.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207