Data Limitations for Modeling Top-Down Effects on Drivers’ Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driving is a visuomotor task, i.e., there is a connection between what drivers see and what they do. While some models of drivers’ gaze account for top-down effects of drivers’ actions, the majority learn only bottom-up correlations between human gaze and driving footage. The crux of the problem is lack of public data with annotations that could be used to train top-down models and evaluate how well models of any kind capture effects of task on attention. As a result, top-down models are trained and evaluated on private data and public benchmarks measure only the overall fit to human data. In this paper, we focus on data limitations by examining four large-scale public datasets, DR(eye)VE, BDD-A, MAAD, and LBW, used to train and evaluate algorithms for drivers’ gaze prediction. We define a set of driving tasks (lateral and longitudinal maneuvers) and context elements (intersections and right-of-way) known to affect drivers’ attention, augment the datasets with annotations based on the said definitions, and analyze the characteristics of data recording and processing pipelines w.r.t. capturing what the drivers see and do. In sum, the contributions of this work are: 1) quantifying biases of the public datasets, 2) examining performance of the SOTA bottom-up models on subsets of the data involving non-trivial drivers’ actions, 3) linking shortcomings of the bottom-up models to data limitations, and 4) recommendations for future data collection and processing. The new annotations and code for reproducing the results are available at https://github.com/ykotseruba/SCOUT.
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 | 0.018 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".