MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387968308 · doi:10.1145/3581783.3613810

Understanding User Behavior in Volumetric Video Watching: Dataset, Analysis and Prediction

2023· article· en· W4387968308 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
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMcGill University
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsViewportComputer scienceInteractivityVoxelPolygon meshVirtual realityMultimediaHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volumetric video emerges as a new attractive video paradigm in recent years since it provides an immersive and interactive 3D viewing experience with six degree-of-freedom (DoF). Unlike traditional 2D or panoramic videos, volumetric videos require dense point clouds, voxels, meshes, or huge neural models to depict volumetric scenes, which results in a prohibitively high bandwidth burden for video delivery. Users' behavior analysis, especially the viewport and gaze analysis, then plays a significant role in prioritizing the content streaming within users' viewport and degrading the remaining content to maximize user QoE with limited bandwidth. Although understanding user behavior is crucial, to the best of our best knowledge, there are no available 3D volumetric video viewing datasets containing fine-grained user interactivity features, not to mention further analysis and behavior prediction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations32
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207