Test-Time Personalization with Meta Prompt for Gaze Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".