An automatic calibration procedure for remote eye-gaze tracking systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote gaze estimation systems use calibration procedures to estimate subject-specific parameters that are needed for the calculation of the point-of-gaze. In these procedures, subjects are required to fixate on a specific point or points at specific time instances. Advanced remote gaze estimation systems can estimate the optical axis of the eye without any personal calibration procedure, but use a single calibration point to estimate the angle between the optical axis and the visual axis (line-of-sight). This paper presents a novel automatic calibration procedure that does not require active user participation. To estimate the angles between the optical and visual axes of each eye, this procedure minimizes the distance between the intersections of the visual axes of the left and right eyes with the surface of a display while subjects look naturally at the display (e.g., watching a video clip). Simulation results demonstrate that the performance of the algorithm improves as the range of viewing angles increases. For a subject sitting 75 cm in front of an 80 cm x 60 cm display (40" TV) the standard deviation of the error in the estimation of the angles between the optical and visual axes is 0.5 degrees.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".