MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390481005 · doi:10.1109/jsac.2023.3345385

MLOps in the Metaverse: Human-Centric Continuous Integration

2024· article· en· W4390481005 on OpenAlexaff
Ningxin Su, Baochun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMetaverseHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceVirtual machineField (mathematics)Virtual realityMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The metaverse is a virtual world that exists entirely in a computer-generated environment, and it offers a new frontier for machine learning. One of the major challenges for using machine learning in the metaverse is MLOps (Machine Learning Operations), an emerging field that focuses on deploying and managing machine learning models in production. It has been widely acknowledged that machine learning models require a large amount of data to learn and make accurate predictions, and such data is generated progressively in real-time as human users interact with the metaverse. Due to the human-centric nature of the metaverse, it goes without saying that, once deployed, models need to be able to adapt to the constantly changing interactive environment and still make accurate predictions. Borrowing a page from software engineering, in this paper, we explore the design space of human-centric continuous integration in metaverse environments, where labeled data samples accumulated with explicit human interactive behavior (e.g., using virtual reality or augmented reality headsets) are used for fine-tuning a deployed deep learning model over a sustained period of time. We propose SPIN, a new mechanism that efficiently utilizes data samples collected from a large number of participating human users over time to fine-tune a deployed model that is shared across all the users. In an extensive array of experimental results using image classification and state-of-the-art <monospace xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">YOLOv8</monospace> object detection models as case studies, we show that SPIN outperforms FedBuff, a state-of-the-art asynchronous FL mechanism from conventional federated learning, by a substantial margin.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal on Selected Areas in CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207