MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308963405 · doi:10.1145/3567730

Reducing the Latency of Touch Tracking on Ad-hoc Surfaces

2022· article· en· W4308963405 on OpenAlexafffund
Neil Xu Fan, Robert Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceLatency (audio)Multi-touchRGB color modelComputer visionArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Touch sensing on ad-hoc surfaces has the potential to transform everyday surfaces in the environment - desks, tables and walls - into tactile, touch-interactive surfaces, creating large, comfortable interactive spaces without the cost of large touch sensors. Depth sensors are a promising way to provide touch sensing on arbitrary surfaces, but past systems have suffered from high latency and poor touch detection accuracy. We apply a novel state machine-based approach to analyzing touch events, combined with a machine-learning approach to predictively classify touch events from depth data with lower latency and higher touch accuracy than previous approaches. Our system can reduce end-to-end touch latency to under 70ms, comparable to conventional capacitive touchscreens. Additionally, we open-source our dataset of over 30,000 touch events recorded in depth, infrared and RGB for the benefit of future researchers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207