Detection and Interpretation of Low-Level and High-Level Surprising and Important Events in Large-Scale Data Streams

Final Report: Detection and Interpretation of Low-Level and High-Level Surprising and Important Events in LargeScale Data Streams Report Title This project explored how to mathematically formalize the computations of surprise and relevance of events in large data streams, including video, audio and text. We have developed new mathematical theories to define surprise in terms of how new data observations may or not affect an observer’s set of beliefs. This is computed in terms of the Kullback-Leibler divergence between posterior and prior beliefs of the observer, and quantified in a new unit of “wows”. Likewise, we have developed a new general theory of relevance that quantifies how new data observations may or not affect an observer’s beliefs about how she/he/it will achieve its goals. Data observations which suggest that some previously possible solutions to a problem are now invalid will be measured as more relevant, in a new unit of “rels”. Both theories have been extensively tested using large video (~3000 hours) and text (twitter feeds) datasets. (a) Papers published in peer-reviewed journals (N/A for none) Enter List of papers submitted or published that acknowledge ARO support from the start of the project to the date of this printing. List the papers, including journal references, in the following categories:

[1]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Bayesian surprise attracts human attention , 2005, Vision Research.

[2]  S. LaValle Rapidly-exploring random trees : a new tool for path planning , 1998 .

[3]  Ali Borji,et al.  What/Where to Look Next? Modeling Top-Down Visual Attention in Complex Interactive Environments , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems.

[4]  D. Ballard,et al.  Eye movements in natural behavior , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance: A specific example , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[6]  D. Ballard,et al.  Modelling the role of task in the control of gaze , 2009, Visual cognition.

[7]  R. C. Langford How People Look at Pictures, A Study of the Psychology of Perception in Art. , 1936 .

[8]  George L. Malcolm,et al.  Combining top-down processes to guide eye movements during real-world scene search. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[9]  Alexander L. Churchill,et al.  Twitter Relevance Filtering via Joint Bayes Classifiers from User Clustering , 2010 .

[10]  Michael L. Mack,et al.  Viewing task influences eye movement control during active scene perception. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[11]  Puiu F. Balan,et al.  Attention as a decision in information space , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  Laurent Itti,et al.  Beyond bottom-up: Incorporating task-dependent influences into a computational model of spatial attention , 2007, 2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[13]  L. Itti,et al.  Modeling the influence of task on attention , 2005, Vision Research.

[14]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Quantifying object salience by equating distractor effects , 2005, Vision Research.

[15]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  The foundation of the concept of relevance , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Why Heuristics Work , 2008, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[17]  Mary M Hayhoe,et al.  Task and context determine where you look. , 2016, Journal of vision.