MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981034728 · doi:10.1145/3332165.3347933

Learning Cooperative Personalized Policies from Gaze Data

2019· article· en· W2981034728 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicsReinforcement learningVariety (cybernetics)Task (project management)GazeContext (archaeology)Object (grammar)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceAnnotationMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An ideal Mixed Reality (MR) system would only present virtual information (e.g., a label) when it is useful to the person. However, deciding when a label is useful is challenging: it depends on a variety of factors, including the current task, previous knowledge, context, etc. In this paper, we propose a Reinforcement Learning (RL) method to learn when to show or hide an object's label given eye movement data. We demonstrate the capabilities of this approach by showing that an intelligent agent can learn cooperative policies that better support users in a visual search task than manually designed heuristics. Furthermore, we show the applicability of our approach to more realistic environments and use cases (e.g., grocery shopping). By posing MR object labeling as a model-free RL problem, we can learn policies implicitly by observing users' behavior without requiring a visual search model or data annotation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207