AdVision: An efficient and effective deep learning based advertisement detector for printed media
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
Automated advertisement detection in newspapers is a challenging task due to the diversity in print layouts, formats, and design styles. This task has critical applications in media monitoring, content analysis, and advertising analytics. To address these challenges, we introduce AdVision, a deep-learning-based solution that treats advertisements as unique visual objects. We provide a comparative study of various detection architectures, including one-stage, two-stage, and transformer-based detectors, to identify the most effective approach for detecting advertisements. Our results are validated through extensive experiments conducted under different conditions and metrics. Newspapers from four different countries—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK—were selected to demonstrate the variety of languages and print formats. Additionally, we conduct a cross-analysis to show how training on one language can generalize to another. To enhance the explainability of our results, we employ GradCAM++ (Chattopadhay et al., 2018) heatmaps. Our experiments demonstrate that the YOLOv8 model achieves superior performance, balancing high precision and recall with minimal inference latency, making it particularly suitable for high-throughput advertisement detection.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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