research-document RFR-DEB5927A
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Visual Scene Construction, Predictive Processing, and Active Perception
RFR-DEB5927A — Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold: Visual Scene Construction, Predictive Processing, and Active Perception
Research opportunity
Create a shared benchmark and decision threshold for the claims or recommendations in “Visual Scene Construction, Predictive Processing, and Active Perception.”
Background
The originating artifact is accepted by the repository publishing inventory with status “complete.” Its Research State section provides the immediate evidence boundary.
Evidence trace
- Origin document: content/projects/composition-science/research-execution-package/rp-comp-005-visual-scene-construction.md
- Section:
Research State - Specific assumption challenged: The source's treatment in “Research State” is sufficiently supported for its intended scope.
- Supporting evidence excerpt: “This canonical repository record integrates the completed execution package into the Composition Science artifact system. The full research journal, evidence registry, hypothesis registry, bibliography, debt register, and completion checklist remain in the source package identified in frontmatter.”
- Reason this opportunity exists: How competing methods or implementations compare on a common corpus with explicit utility, safety, and cost thresholds.
Unknowns
- How competing methods or implementations compare on a common corpus with explicit utility, safety, and cost thresholds.
Dependencies
Suggested REP and methodology
- Suggested REP:
REP-RP-COMP-005-BENCHMARK - Methodology: Curate representative cases, blind ground truth where possible, define baselines and uncertainty-aware metrics, and run reproducible benchmark evaluations.
- Expected outputs: Versioned benchmark, baseline implementations, scoring harness, datasheet, and adoption decision rule.
- Success criteria: Independent teams can reproduce scores and the benchmark discriminates meaningful quality differences without rewarding proxy gaming.
- Recommended agent:
research-engineering-agent - Estimated effort: Medium
- Expected knowledge gained: How competing methods or implementations compare on a common corpus with explicit utility, safety, and cost thresholds.
Evaluation
| Dimension | Score (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Knowledge gain | 4 |
| Potential impact | 4 |
| Cross-project reuse | 5 |
| Scientific importance | 5 |
| Dependency cost | 5 |
| Implementation difficulty | 3 |
| Frontier score | 392 |
Confidence in this opportunity: moderate. Status: Open.