Gaze Estimation Approach Using Deep Differential Residual Network
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
Gaze estimation, which is a method to determine where a person is looking at given the person’s full face, is a valuable clue for understanding human intention. Similarly to other domains of computer vision, deep learning (DL) methods have gained recognition in the gaze estimation domain. However, there are still gaze calibration problems in the gaze estimation domain, thus preventing existing methods from further improving the performances. An effective solution is to directly predict the difference information of two human eyes, such as the differential network (Diff-Nn). However, this solution results in a loss of accuracy when using only one inference image. We propose a differential residual model (DRNet) combined with a new loss function to make use of the difference information of two eye images. We treat the difference information as auxiliary information. We assess the proposed model (DRNet) mainly using two public datasets (1) MpiiGaze and (2) Eyediap. Considering only the eye features, DRNet outperforms the state-of-the-art gaze estimation methods with angular-error of 4.57 and 6.14 using MpiiGaze and Eyediap datasets, respectively. Furthermore, the experimental results also demonstrate that DRNet is extremely robust to noise images.
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