Hybrid Eye-Tracking on a Smartphone with CNN Feature Extraction and an Infrared 3D Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a low-cost, robust, and accurate remote eye-tracking system that uses an industrial prototype smartphone with integrated infrared illumination and camera. Numerous studies have demonstrated the beneficial use of eye-tracking in domains such as neurological and neuropsychiatric testing, advertising evaluation, pilot training, and automotive safety. Remote eye-tracking on a smartphone could enable the significant growth in the deployment of applications in these domains. Our system uses a 3D gaze-estimation model that enables accurate point-of-gaze (PoG) estimation with free head and device motion. To accurately determine the input eye features (pupil center and corneal reflections), the system uses Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) together with a novel center-of-mass output layer. The use of CNNs improves the system's robustness to the significant variability in the appearance of eye-images found in handheld eye trackers. The system was tested with 8 subjects with the device free to move in their hands and produced a gaze bias of 0.72°. Our hybrid approach that uses artificial illumination, a 3D gaze-estimation model, and a CNN feature extractor achieved an accuracy that is significantly (400%) better than current eye-tracking systems on smartphones that use natural illumination and machine-learning techniques to estimate the PoG.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".