Non-Intrusive Real Time Eye Tracking Using Facial Alignment for Assistive Technologies
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
Most affordable eye tracking systems use either intrusive setup such as head-mounted cameras or use fixed cameras with infrared corneal reflections via illuminators. In the case of assistive technologies, using intrusive eye tracking systems can be a burden to wear for extended periods of time and infrared based solutions generally do not work in all environments, especially outside or inside if the sunlight reaches the space. Therefore, we propose an eye-tracking solution using state-of-the-art convolutional neural network face alignment algorithms that is both accurate and lightweight for assistive tasks such as selecting an object for use with assistive robotics arms. This solution uses a simple webcam for gaze and face position and pose estimation. We achieve a much faster computation time than the current state-of-the-art while maintaining comparable accuracy. This paves the way for accurate appearance-based gaze estimation even on mobile devices, giving an average error of around 4.5° on the MPIIGaze dataset (Zhang et al., 2019) and state-of-the-art average errors of 3.9° and 3.3° on the UTMultiview (Sugano et al., 2014) and GazeCapture (Krafka et al., 2016; Park et al., 2019) datasets respectively, while achieving a decrease in computation time of up to 91%.
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