← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.36743 · v1
Readout and Operating-Point Sensitivity in Event-Stream Candidate Selection
首次提交 2026-10-27 14:59
版本更新 2026-10-27 14:59
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:35
摘要
Event-triggered recording needs a useful combination of target capture and false triggers, yet representation comparisons can change with readout and threshold calibration. We evaluate real event accumulations from 520 DailyDVS-200 clips and 47 participants using participant-disjoint training, validation, and testing. The original study varies frozen encoder scale, accumulation duration, and temporal view count; a post-review extension adds two supervised-pretrained convolutional encoders, a 61,586-parameter trained CNN with three seeds, ten repeated participant partitions, and calibration sensitivity. At 50 ms/eight views under the primary handshake-or-fall policy, DINO-S CLS captures 101/132 targets with 40/388 false triggers, versus 78/132 and 35/388 for patch mean. DINO-B CLS has lower selected-threshold capture but higher fold-wise low-FPR partial AUC (0.746 versus 0.732). MobileNetV3-Small captures 97/132 with 53/388 false triggers, demonstrating why lightweight baselines and actual operating points matter. Across ten dependent repartitions, mean normalized partial AUC is 0.738 for DINO-B CLS and 0.674 for MobileNet. The original LeJEPA S-to-B capture difference is 8.3 points, but its multiplicity-adjusted interval includes zero. Duration and view-count effects remain policy dependent. We find no established JEPA-specific advantage. The evidence concerns offline action-defined candidate selection on previously used development data; it does not establish personal recording value, continuous false alarms per hour, or eyewear energy.
作者备注：12 pages, 4 figures, including supplementary material
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-10-27 14:59 · 最新观测版本
Readout and Operating-Point Sensitivity in Event-Stream Candidate Selection
Event-triggered recording needs a useful combination of target capture and false triggers, yet representation comparisons can change with readout and threshold calibration. We evaluate real event accumulations from 520 DailyDVS-200 clips and 47 participants using participant-disjoint training, validation, and testing. The original study varies frozen encoder scale, accumulation duration, and temporal view count; a post-review extension adds two supervised-pretrained convolutional encoders, a 61,586-parameter trained CNN with three seeds, ten repeated participant partitions, and calibration sensitivity. At 50 ms/eight views under the primary handshake-or-fall policy, DINO-S CLS captures 101/132 targets with 40/388 false triggers, versus 78/132 and 35/388 for patch mean. DINO-B CLS has lower selected-threshold capture but higher fold-wise low-FPR partial AUC (0.746 versus 0.732). MobileNetV3-Small captures 97/132 with 53/388 false triggers, demonstrating why lightweight baselines and actual operating points matter. Across ten dependent repartitions, mean normalized partial AUC is 0.738 for DINO-B CLS and 0.674 for MobileNet. The original LeJEPA S-to-B capture difference is 8.3 points, but its multiplicity-adjusted interval includes zero. Duration and view-count effects remain policy dependent. We find no established JEPA-specific advantage. The evidence concerns offline action-defined candidate selection on previously used development data; it does not establish personal recording value, continuous false alarms per hour, or eyewear energy.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗