Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

YETI (YET to Intervene) Proactive Interventions by Multimodal AI Agents in Augmented Reality Tasks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read YETI claims an AR agent can decide when to proactively help using only two lightweight video signals, reaching 88.31 recall on HoloAssist interventions.

desk verdict A plausible lightweight heuristic for proactive intervention detection, but the headline results rest on an evaluation protocol that does not separate signal from chance. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09355 v1 pith:KPWOFLON submitted 2025-01-16 cs.AI cs.CVcs.ETcs.MA

Saptarashmi Bandyopadhyay , Vikas Bahirwani , Lavisha Aggarwal , Bhanu Guda , Lin Li , Andrea Colaco This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CVcs.ETcs.MA
keywords proactiveAIaugmentedrealityinterventiondetectionegocentricvideostructuralsimilarityobjectcountingvision-languagemodelHoloAssist
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that an augmented-reality assistant does not need heavy multimodal sensor streams to know when to proactively step in and help a user. It proposes YETI, an algorithm that runs on two tiny per-frame signals: structural similarity (SSIM) between consecutive frames and a change-in-object-count signal produced by a lightweight vision-language model. On the HoloAssist benchmark, YETI detects proactive intervention moments with substantially higher recall than the HoloAssist baselines while using features orders of magnitude smaller. The practical stake is that proactive help in AR—catching mistakes, confirming actions, giving follow-up instructions—could run in real time on resource-constrained head-worn devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are two per-frame signals computed at 1 frame per second. The first is SSIM, a standard image-similarity measure between consecutive frames, used as a filter: frames whose SSIM exceeds a threshold $\tau$ are considered too static to warrant intervention. The second is the alignment signal, the per-second change in the number of objects counted by a lightweight vision-language model prompted to report object count; a large upward or downward change in this count is taken as evidence that the user is doing something worth commenting on. The YETI algorithm then selects intervention frames as local extrema of the alignment signal, subject to a conversation interval $m$ (minimum gap between interventions) and an episode interval $k$ (at most one intervention per episode). The two variants differ in whether the extrema threshold is fixed from the first episode (Global) or updated from recent history (Local).

What would settle it

Re-run the same evaluation with a baseline that fires intervention frames at fixed intervals or at random times; if that baseline's recall under the five-second window approaches YETI's 88 percent, then the recall figure is an artifact of the tolerance window rather than a sign that the signals align with true intervention moments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the moments when an expert should proactively intervene in a guided procedural task are detectable from two low-cost signals: the structural similarity of consecutive egocentric frames and the change in the number of objects visible in the scene. Combining these signals, YETI flags an intervention frame when the object-count change hits a local extremum after redundant frames are filtered by an SSIM threshold. In the paper's evaluation against the HoloAssist benchmark, the Global variant of YETI achieves 88.31 recall and 56.17 F-measure on proactive interventions, compared with 37.59 recall and 42.28 F-measure for the strongest HoloAssist baseline (RGB+hand+eye), and its two features together take roughly 41 MB versus hundreds of MB for the baseline feature sets. The paper presents this as evidence that proactive intervention detection can be both more sensitive and far cheaper, making real-time AR assistance practical.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand only if the HoloAssist intervention labels are the correct ground truth for when an agent should intervene, and if counting any YETI detection within a five-second window of such a label as a true positive is a fair way to score performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An AR assistant using YETI-style signals could run proactive intervention detection on-device in real time, because the two features are about 41 MB in total rather than hundreds of MB.
  • High recall across all three intervention types (confirm action, correct mistake, follow up) means the assistant would rarely miss a moment to speak up, though the lower precision implies it would also interrupt users more often.
  • The Global YETI variant, which fixes the extrema threshold from the first episode, gives the best recall and F-measure balance in the paper's experiments.
  • The approach is task-agnostic across the 482 HoloAssist sequences: it does not require hand pose, gaze, depth, or IMU sensors, so it applies wherever egocentric video is available.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the matching window were tightened from 5 seconds to 1-2 seconds, YETI's recall would likely drop, so whether the 88 percent figure survives stricter temporal alignment is a testable question the paper leaves open.
  • The same two signals could transfer to other egocentric procedural benchmarks for mistake detection or step anticipation, because neither signal depends on HoloAssist-specific annotations.
  • Precision could be raised by gating YETI's triggers on a second condition, such as the presence of a hand or a gaze shift, without losing the on-the-fly, low-memory advantage.
  • Because YETI needs no depth or IMU data, it is a candidate for deployment on camera-only AR glasses, a scenario the paper frames but does not test on actual hardware.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces YETI, a deterministic algorithm for detecting moments when an AI agent should proactively intervene in AR-mediated procedural tasks. YETI computes two lightweight signals from egocentric video: per-frame object counts from a VLM (PaliGemma) and SSIM between consecutive frames; the algorithm triggers an intervention when the object-count change reaches a local extremum, subject to filtering and temporal spacing constraints. The authors evaluate YETI on the HoloAssist benchmark and report substantially higher recall and F-measure than the HoloAssist baselines for proactive intervention detection, with far smaller feature footprints.

Significance. The proposed approach is refreshingly simple, interpretable, and potentially deployable on resource-constrained devices; if the evaluation were sound, the paper would make a useful contribution to proactive agent design. The algorithmic specification is clear and deterministic, and the authors provide extensive ablation tables. However, the current evaluation protocol does not establish the claimed advantage, so the contribution's significance is presently conditional.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Table 4; Supplementary Table 6] The ±5 s symmetric tolerance window, combined with YETI's low precision (41.86) and high recall (88.31), means the detector fires about 2,120 times on the 24,537 test frames. Under the same evaluation rule, a null detector choosing that many frames uniformly at random would be expected to hit roughly 61% of the 1,005 intervention labels (1 − (1 − 11/24537)^2120) and attain an F-measure near 0.39, already close to the best HoloAssist baseline (F = 42.28). Because no random, periodic, or rate-matched baseline is reported, the headline recall of 88.31 vs. the baseline 37.59 is not established as signal; a large part of the apparent improvement could be an artifact of YETI's much higher detection rate. In addition, the symmetric window credits detections that occur after the labeled intervention, so the results do not demonstrate proactive timing.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Table 3; Supplementary Tables 10-15] The four hyperparameters (SSIM threshold τ, conversation interval m, extrema range r, episode length k) are selected on the test set, and the ablation tables report test-set metrics. This is not a valid comparison: the HoloAssist baselines are presumably evaluated with fixed settings, and YETI's numbers reflect test-set optimization. Furthermore, Global YETI uses the first local extrema of each test video to set the per-video threshold, implicitly using test information within each video. The authors should perform model selection on a validation split or via cross-validation and report the held-out test performance.
  3. [Section 4.1, Table 4] The procedure for aggregating HoloAssist per-class results into the 'overall' row is described only as 'averaging.' This is ambiguous and likely inappropriate: equal-weight averaging of per-class precision/recall/F-measure ignores the large class imbalance (e.g., 474 Confirm Action vs. 142 Correct Mistake test frames in Table 6). The resulting overall numbers for the baselines are not comparable to YETI's overall numbers, which appear to be computed by pooling all intervention frames. The authors should either report pooled (micro-averaged) metrics for both YETI and HoloAssist, or clearly state the aggregation rule.
  4. [Section 3.3 and Figure 2] The alignment signal is the raw change in object count between consecutive frames. Because PaliGemma's counts are noisy and the signal is not calibrated to task-specific ground truth, the extrema detected by YETI may correspond to counting noise rather than meaningful action state changes. The paper provides no analysis of PaliGemma counting accuracy on this dataset, nor any comparison against a simple motion/activity baseline. At minimum, the authors should report the distribution of the VLM counting errors and show that the extrema coincide with annotated interventions more often than would be expected from the counting noise alone.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 1] The '6500 times less memory' comparison mixes feature types and units (per-frame embeddings vs. scalar signals); the comparison should state the per-frame dimensionality and total storage per video.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The pseudocode uses undefined variables ('ci' in line 8, 'fcurrent' in line 23) and the control flow for episode and conversation intervals is hard to follow; please rewrite with clear definitions and a worked example.
  3. [Section 4.1 vs. Section 3.1] Section 4.1 states that the evaluation includes 482 videos 'out of the total HoloAssist dataset' but the dataset description in Section 3.1 says the dataset has 482 interaction sequences; clarify the relationship between these numbers.
  4. [Supplementary Section 6] The supplementary text contains speculative claims such as 'YETI likely employs more streamlined feature representations'; these should be removed or supported by evidence.
  5. [Section 4.2] The authors state that the 5-second window 'is consistent with the method used to evaluate the HoloAssist baseline model [21]'; please provide a precise citation to the HoloAssist protocol and state whether the original baselines used the same window or a different one.
  6. [Section 5] The phrase '60,000 times more memory-efficient' in Section 5 is inconsistent with the '6,500 times' value in Table 1 and the Introduction; please reconcile these numbers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: test-set hyperparameter selection turns the reported benchmark numbers into fitted outputs, while the core alignment signal remains label-independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Experimental Settings), Table 3; Supplementary Section 9.2 (Extrema Range), Tables 12-13]
    "We carefully selected hyperparameters to balance the trade-off between timely interventions and avoiding excessive interruptions. The key parameters are summarized in Table 3. ... Since overall, YETI struggles more with precision than recall, our chosen extrema range is one, which maximizes precision."

    The Table 3 hyperparameters (SSIM threshold, conversation interval, extrema range, history length) are not derived from first principles; the supplementary material selects them by comparing precision, recall, and F-measure on the same test split later used for the headline results. For instance, Supp. 9.2 chooses the extrema range because it 'maximizes precision' after Tables 12-13 report test-set metrics for r=0, ±1, ±2, and Supp. 9.1/9.3 similarly tune the conversation interval and SSIM threshold against the test set.

full rationale

The derivation chain is mostly self-contained. YETI's two input signals—SSIM between consecutive frames and the change in object count estimated by PaliGemma—are computed directly from video frames without using HoloAssist intervention labels, and the detection algorithm is a deterministic threshold/extrema detector rather than a model trained on the target labels. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: references to PaliGemma, HoloAssist, and SSIM point to external work, and no uniqueness theorem or prior-work ansatz is imported to force the method. The principal circularity-adjacent step is the selection of Table 3's hyperparameters: the supplementary ablation tables report test-set precision/recall/F-measure for each candidate value and choose the value that 'maximizes precision' on that same split, after which Table 4 reports the same test split as YETI's performance. That is fitting-to-benchmark rather than a clean prediction. Separate evaluation concerns—the ±5 s symmetric tolerance window, the absence of a rate-matched null baseline, and Algorithm 1's unconditional insertion of the first-episode boundary frame into the intervention set—may inflate the reported recall but are not circularities, because the labels do not enter the signal construction. Overall, the core claim retains independent content, so the circularity score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the meaning of SSIM and object-count changes, plus an evaluation rule (5-second window) and an unspecified averaging of baselines. The algorithm introduces four hand-chosen hyperparameters and no new physical or mathematical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • SSIM threshold τ = 0.9
    Frames with SSIM ≥ τ are filtered as redundant; value chosen to balance precision and recall on HoloAssist test set.
  • Conversation interval m = 1
    Minimum temporal gap (seconds) between interventions; ablations in Tables 10-11 show F-measure decreases with larger m.
  • Extrema range r = ±1
    Range around a local minimum/maximum of ΔC that triggers an intervention; ablations in Tables 12-13 show r=0 lowers recall and r=±2 lowers precision.
  • Episode length k = 5
    History length before the first intervention is allowed; ablations (Section 9.4) show little effect on results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SSIM between consecutive video frames is a meaningful indicator of user activity relevant to intervention timing
    The method filters frames with high SSIM as 'user not doing anything'; this is asserted in Section 3.4 and not validated against alternative activity measures.
  • domain assumption Change in object count (ΔC) computed from PaliGemma reflects task-relevant user actions
    Section 3.3 motivates this with an intuition about listening versus acting, but the paper does not verify PaliGemma's count accuracy on egocentric AR video.
  • domain assumption A detection is a true positive if it falls within a 5-second window around a labeled HoloAssist intervention
    Adopted from HoloAssist (Section 4.2); this window directly affects the reported recall and precision.
  • domain assumption The HoloAssist baseline numbers for each intervention class can be averaged to give an overall baseline
    Section 4.1 states the results were 'aggregated through averaging', but the paper does not specify whether this is macro-averaging of per-class metrics, which can be misleading with imbalanced classes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of YETI (YET to Intervene) Proactive Interventions by Multimodal AI Agents in Augmented Reality Tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KPWOFLON

@misc{pith2026250109355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: YETI (YET to Intervene) Proactive Interventions by Multimodal AI Agents in Augmented Reality Tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KPWOFLON}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09355}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal AI Agents are AI models that have the capability of interactively and cooperatively assisting human users to solve day-to-day tasks. Augmented Reality (AR) head worn devices can uniquely improve the user experience of solving procedural day-to-day tasks by providing egocentric multimodal (audio and video) observational capabilities to AI Agents. Such AR capabilities can help AI Agents see and listen to actions that users take which can relate to multimodal capabilities of human users. Existing AI Agents, either Large Language Models (LLMs) or Multimodal Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are reactive in nature, which means that models cannot take an action without reading or listening to the human user's prompts. Proactivity of AI Agents on the other hand can help the human user detect and correct any mistakes in agent observed tasks, encourage users when they do tasks correctly or simply engage in conversation with the user - akin to a human teaching or assisting a user. Our proposed YET to Intervene (YETI) multimodal agent focuses on the research question of identifying circumstances that may require the agent to intervene proactively. This allows the agent to understand when it can intervene in a conversation with human users that can help the user correct mistakes on tasks, like cooking, using AR. Our YETI Agent learns scene understanding signals based on interpretable notions of Structural Similarity (SSIM) on consecutive video frames. We also define the alignment signal which the AI Agent can learn to identify if the video frames corresponding to the user's actions on the task are consistent with expected actions. These signals are used by our AI Agent to determine when it should proactively intervene. We compare our results on the instances of proactive intervention in the HoloAssist multimodal benchmark for an expert agent guiding a user to complete procedural tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09355 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the YETI framework detecting the frames of proactive interaction or intervention by a Multimodal AI Agent. Our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of Alignment Signal to instructions. If a user agent is being guided on how to as￾semble a computer, they will not be moving objects around while they process the instructions. Rather, they will be lis￾tening so they know what to do next. Building upon this un￾derstanding, we can estimate when a proactive AI assistant should intervene by simply monitoring the change in object count from second to second… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of Alignment Signal measuring changing object [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of SSIM filtering proactive interventions by ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intervention Detection for Coffee Making Task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Intervention Detection for Changing Electric Circuit Task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Do, Karan Ahuja, Eric J

    Steven Abreu, Tiffany D. Do, Karan Ahuja, Eric J. Gonza- lez, Lee Payne, Daniel McDuff, and Mar Gonzalez-Franco. Parse-ego4d: Personal action recommendation suggestions for egocentric videos, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Tal- lyqa: Answering complex counting questions

    Manoj Acharya, Kushal Kafle, and Christopher Kanan. Tal- lyqa: Answering complex counting questions. In Proceed- ings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , pages 8076–8084, 2019. 3

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Paligemma: A versatile 3b vlm for trans- fer, 2024

    Lucas Beyer, Andreas Steiner, Andr ´e Susano Pinto, Alexan- der Kolesnikov, Xiao Wang, Daniel Salz, Maxim Neumann, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Michael Tschannen, Emanuele Bugliarello, Thomas Unterthiner, Daniel Keysers, Skanda Koppula, Fangyu Liu, Adam Grycner, Alexey Gritsenko, Neil Houlsby, Manoj Kumar, Keran Rong, Julian Eisensch- los, Rishabh Kabra, Matthi...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    ProMISe: A proactive multi-turn dialogue dataset for information-seeking intent resolution

    Yash Butala, Siddhant Garg, Pratyay Banerjee, and Amita Misra. ProMISe: A proactive multi-turn dialogue dataset for information-seeking intent resolution. In Findings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, pages 1774–1789, St. Julian’s, Malta, 2024. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. 2

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Baki Ko- caballi

    Caterina B ´erub´e, Marcia Nißen, Rasita Vinay, Alexa Geiger, Tobias Budig, Aashish Bhandari, Catherine Rachel Pe Ben- ito, Nathan Ibarcena, Olivia Pistolese, Pan Li, Abdullah Bin Sawad, Elgar Fleisch, Christoph Stettler, Bronwyn Hems- ley, Shlomo Berkovsky, Tobias Kowatsch, and A. Baki Ko- caballi. Proactive behavior in voice assistants: A systematic rev...

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Smart help: Strategic opponent modeling for proactive and adaptive robot assistance in households

    Zhihao Cao, Zidong Wang, Siwen Xie, Anji Liu, and Lifeng Fan. Smart help: Strategic opponent modeling for proactive and adaptive robot assistance in households. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18091–18101, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Scaling egocentric vision: The epic-kitchens dataset

    Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Sanja Fidler, Antonino Furnari, Evangelos Kazakos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, and Michael Wray. Scaling egocentric vision: The epic-kitchens dataset. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Com- puter Vision (ECCV), 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Towards human-centered proactive con- versational agents

    Yang Deng, Lizi Liao, Zhonghua Zheng, Grace Hui Yang, and Tat-Seng Chua. Towards human-centered proactive con- versational agents. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, page 807–818, New York, NY , USA,

    work page

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Prego: online mistake detection in procedural ego- centric videos

    Alessandro Flaborea, Guido Maria D’Amely di Melen- dugno, Leonardo Plini, Luca Scofano, Edoardo De Mat- teis, Antonino Furnari, Giovanni Maria Farinella, and Fabio Galasso. Prego: online mistake detection in procedural ego- centric videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Eugene Byrne, Zachary Chavis, Antonino Furnari, Rohit Girdhar, Jackson Hamburger, Hao Jiang, Miao Liu, Xingyu Liu, Miguel Mar- tin, Tushar Nagarajan, Ilija Radosavovic, Santhosh Kumar Ramakrishnan, Fiona Ryan, Jayant Sharma, Michael Wray, Meng...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Lorenzo Torresani, Kris Kitani, Jitendra Malik, Triantafyllos Afouras, Kumar Ashutosh, Vijay Baiyya, Siddhant Bansal, Bikram Boote, Eugene Byrne, Zach Chavis, Joya Chen, Feng Cheng, Fu- Jen Chu, Sean Crane, Avijit Dasgupta, Jing Dong, Maria Es...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Proactive con- versational agents in the post-chatgpt world

    Lizi Liao, Grace Hui Yang, and Chirag Shah. Proactive con- versational agents in the post-chatgpt world. In Proceed- ings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , page 3452–3455, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Proactive agent: Shift- ing llm agents from reactive responses to active assistance,

    Yaxi Lu, Shenzhi Yang, Cheng Qian, Guirong Chen, Qinyu Luo, Yesai Wu, Huadong Wang, Xin Cong, Zhong Zhang, Yankai Lin, Weiwen Liu, Yasheng Wang, Zhiyuan Liu, Fangming Liu, and Maosong Sun. Proactive agent: Shift- ing llm agents from reactive responses to active assistance,

  6. [14]

    Eyes wide unshut: Unsupervised mistake detec- tion in egocentric video by detecting unpredictable gaze

    Michele Mazzamuto, Antonino Furnari, and Giovanni Maria Farinella. Eyes wide unshut: Unsupervised mistake detec- tion in egocentric video by detecting unpredictable gaze. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08379, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ti-prego: Chain of thought and in- context learning for online mistake detection in procedural egocentric videos

    Leonardo Plini, Luca Scofano, Edoardo De Matteis, Guido Maria D’Amely di Melendugno, Alessandro Flaborea, An- drea Sanchietti, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Fabio Galasso, and Antonino Furnari. Ti-prego: Chain of thought and in- context learning for online mistake detection in pro...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Quasi-online detection of take and re- lease actions from egocentric videos

    Rosario Scavo, Francesco Ragusa, Giovanni Maria Farinella, and Antonino Furnari. Quasi-online detection of take and re- lease actions from egocentric videos. In International Con- ference on Image Analysis and Processing , pages 13–24. Springer, 2023. 3

    2023

  9. [17]

    Differentiable task graph learning: Procedural ac- tivity representation and online mistake detection from ego- centric videos

    Luigi Seminara, Giovanni Maria Farinella, and Antonino Furnari. Differentiable task graph learning: Procedural ac- tivity representation and online mistake detection from ego- centric videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01486, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean- Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Meta smart glasses—large language models and the future for assistive glasses for individuals with vision impairments

    Ethan Waisberg, Joshua Ong, Mouayad Masalkhi, Nasif Za- man, Prithul Sarker, Andrew G Lee, and Alireza Tavakkoli. Meta smart glasses—large language models and the future for assistive glasses for individuals with vision impairments. Eye, 38(6):1036–1038, 2024. 2

    2024

  12. [20]

    Oadtr: Online action detection with transformers

    Xiang Wang, Shiwei Zhang, Zhiwu Qing, Yuanjie Shao, Zhengrong Zuo, Changxin Gao, and Nong Sang. Oadtr: Online action detection with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 7565–7575, 2021. 3

    2021

  13. [21]

    Holoassist: an egocen- tric human interaction dataset for interactive ai assistants in the real world

    Xin Wang, Taein Kwon, Mahdi Rad, Bowen Pan, Ishani Chakraborty, Sean Andrist, Dan Bohus, Ashley Feniello, Bu- gra Tekin, Felipe Vieira Frujeri, et al. Holoassist: an egocen- tric human interaction dataset for interactive ai assistants in the real world. In Proceedings of the I...

  14. [22]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Si- moncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13(4):600–612, 2004. 5

    2004

  15. [23]

    Proagent: Building proac- tive cooperative agents with large language models

    Ceyao Zhang, Kaijie Yang, Siyi Hu, Zihao Wang, Guanghe Li, Yihang Sun, Cheng Zhang, Zhaowei Zhang, Anji Liu, Song-Chun Zhu, Xiaojun Chang, Junge Zhang, Feng Yin, Yitao Liang, and Yaodong Yang. Proagent: Building proac- tive cooperative agents with large language models. Pro- c...

    2024

  16. [25]

    Detailed Analysis of Results This section provides a more in-depth analysis of the results presented in Tables 1, 4, and 5 with a special focus on Table 4 comparing the performance of YETI to the HoloAssist baseline in detecting proactive interventions. Overall Performance: YE...

  17. [26]

    Comparative Analysis of YETI 7.1. Comparison with other Classifier Models In order to assess the efficacy of our YETI algorithm (Al- gorithm 1), we trained a Random Forest Classifier, a Deci- sion Tree, and a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) in order to have a comparative analysis...

  18. [27]

    Additional Related Works 8.1. Procedural Mistake Detection Previous studies have explored the analysis of egocentric data to assist with procedural tasks; however, none have ap- proached this challenge in the same comprehensive manner as YETI. YETI is designed to detect optima...

  19. [28]

    This work concentrates on identifying ”take” and ”release” ac- tions—instances where the user’s hands interact with ob- jects—rather than on mistake or intervention detection

    focuses on near real-time detection, allowing a slight delay between an action occurring and its detection. This work concentrates on identifying ”take” and ”release” ac- tions—instances where the user’s hands interact with ob- jects—rather than on mistake or intervention dete...

  20. [29]

    Agent Conversation Interval The Agent Conversation Interval is a parameter for how long we suppose it will take a user to respond to an inter- vention by the AI Agent

    Ablation Studies 9.1. Agent Conversation Interval The Agent Conversation Interval is a parameter for how long we suppose it will take a user to respond to an inter- vention by the AI Agent. In Table 3 we use a value of one, indicating the user will take about one second to act...

  21. [30]

    Additional Use-Cases for Proactive Inter- vention Detection The HoloAssist paper presents many additional use cases for an AI Assistant that can proactively intervene when the user is trying to accomplish a task. An exhaustive list of all the uses included in the dataset is as...

  22. [31]

    Complexity Management: Furniture assembly is a good example of a task that seems straightforward at first Method Extrema Ranges Overall Confirm Action Correct Mistake Follow Up Prec. Rec. F-meas. Prec. Rec. F-meas. Prec. Rec. F-meas. Prec. Rec. F-meas. Global YETI 0 41.34 70.6...

  23. [32]

    If the user inter- acts with a live wire while the power is on they could be seriously injured

    Safety Considerations: Tasks such as changing a me- chanical belt or a circuit breaker can open the user up to serious harm if they are not careful. If the user inter- acts with a live wire while the power is on they could be seriously injured. An AI assistant could potentiall...

  24. [33]

    This would be especially useful for fixing a motorcycle, which is often done by expert mechanics

    Expertise Gap: If a user is new to completing a task that benefits from learned experience, the proactive AI Agent could take on the role of an instructor guiding a student. This would be especially useful for fixing a motorcycle, which is often done by expert mechanics. The d...

  25. [2024]

    Association for Computing Machinery. 2

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.