Improving Brain-to-Image Reconstruction via Fine-Grained Text Bridging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain-to-Image reconstruction aims to recover visual stimuli perceived by humans from brain activity. However, the reconstructed visual stimuli often missing details and semantic inconsistencies, which may be attributed to insufficient semantic information. To address this issue, we propose an approach named Fine-grained Brain-to-Image reconstruction (FgB2I), which employs fine-grained text as bridge to improve image reconstruction. FgB2I comprises three key stages: detail enhancement, decoding fine-grained text descriptions, and text-bridged brain-to-image reconstruction. In the detail-enhancement stage, we leverage large vision–language models to generate fine-grained captions for visual stimuli and experimentally validate its importance. We propose three reward metrics (object accuracy, text-image semantic similarity, and image-image semantic similarity) to guide the language model in decoding fine-grained text descriptions from fMRI signals. The fine-grained text descriptions can be integrated into existing reconstruction methods to achieve fine-grained Brain-to-Image reconstruction.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.025 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".