MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410790619 · doi:10.1145/3729414

A Framework for Leveraging LLMs for Scene Analysis and Cognitive Processing

2025· article· en· W4410790619 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVisual Attention and Saliency Detection
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionComputer scienceCognitive psychologyPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In everyday visual search tasks, humans rely on prior knowledge of object placements in scenes to efficiently locate target objects. This ability is evidenced by eye movement patterns, where individuals focus on areas that are more likely to contain the target, such as searching for a cup on a table or shoes on the floor. Building on this, we propose a new annotation pipeline that leverages these priors by extracting a knowledge graph from images based on automatically annotated objects. This knowledge graph is then used with large language models (LLMs) to predict the most likely locations of a specific target object in an image. Our approach is the first instance of using LLMs to identify relevant prior knowledge in images and to bridge the gap between human scene understanding and computational models.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.313 · 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