MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393156087 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i4.28151

Test-Time Personalization with Meta Prompt for Gaze Estimation

2024· article· en· W4393156087 on OpenAlexaff
Huan Liu, Julia Qi, Zhenhao Li, Mohammad Hassanpour, Yang Wang, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis, Yuanhao Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationGazeTest (biology)EstimationMeta-analysisComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineEngineeringWorld Wide WebGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the recent remarkable achievement in gaze estimation, efficient and accurate personalization of gaze estimation without labels is a practical problem but rarely touched on in the literature. To achieve efficient personalization, we take inspiration from the recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) by updating a negligible number of parameters, "prompts", at the test time. Specifically, the prompt is additionally attached without perturbing original network and can contain less than 1% of a ResNet-18's parameters. Our experiments show high efficiency of the prompt tuning approach. The proposed one can be 10 times faster in terms of adaptation speed than the methods compared. However, it is non-trivial to update the prompt for personalized gaze estimation without labels. At the test time, it is essential to ensure that the minimizing of particular unsupervised loss leads to the goals of minimizing gaze estimation error. To address this difficulty, we propose to meta-learn the prompt to ensure that its updates align with the goal. Our experiments show that the meta-learned prompt can be effectively adapted even with a simple symmetry loss. In addition, we experiment on four cross-dataset validations to show the remarkable advantages of the proposed method.

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)0.000
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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207