Accurate Model-Based Point of Gaze Estimation on Mobile Devices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most accurate remote Point of Gaze (PoG) estimation methods that allow free head movements use infrared light sources and cameras together with gaze estimation models. Current gaze estimation models were developed for desktop eye-tracking systems and assume that the relative roll between the system and the subjects' eyes (the 'R-Roll') is roughly constant during use. This assumption is not true for hand-held mobile-device-based eye-tracking systems. We present an analysis that shows the accuracy of estimating the PoG on screens of hand-held mobile devices depends on the magnitude of the R-Roll angle and the angular offset between the visual and optical axes of the individual viewer. We also describe a new method to determine the PoG which compensates for the effects of R-Roll on the accuracy of the POG. Experimental results on a prototype infrared smartphone show that for an R-Roll angle of 90 ° , the new method achieves accuracy of approximately 1 ° , while a gaze estimation method that assumes that the R-Roll angle remains constant achieves an accuracy of 3.5 ° . The manner in which the experimental PoG estimation errors increase with the increase in the R-Roll angle was consistent with the analysis. The method presented in this paper can improve significantly the performance of eye-tracking systems on hand-held mobile-devices.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it