Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 30 references

MAGNeT: Multimodal Adaptive Gaussian Networks for Intent Inference in Moving Target Selection across Complex Scenarios

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MAGNeT infers which moving target a user meant, adapting to new contexts with a few taps.

desk verdict A useful few-shot adaptation idea for moving-target selection, but the headline 3D fusion claim is unproven because the paper only defines a single 3D expert. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12992 v2 pith:QQMFG5RC submitted 2025-08-18 cs.MM

Xiangxian Li , Yawen Zheng , Baiqiao Zhang , Yijia Ma , Xianhui Cao , Juan Liu , Yulong Bian , Jin Huang
show 1 more author
Chenglei Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MM
keywords movingtargetselectionintentinferenceGaussianmixturemodelmultimodalfusionfew-shotlearningTernary-Gaussiantouchinteractionvirtualreality
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

This paper tries to establish that user intent in moving-target selection can be inferred accurately in new, previously unseen contexts using only a handful of labeled touch samples, by adaptively mixing pre-fitted statistical expert models. The authors argue this matters because real deployments such as touchscreens in moving vehicles or VR environments constantly face new vibration, posture, and device conditions, while existing models need large datasets for each new context. MAGNeT's proposal is to let a small context-aware network fuse classical Ternary-Gaussian expert models based on multimodal cues, including user profile, vibration and acceleration signals, and target properties, rather than fitting a new statistical model from scratch. If the central results hold, a system could transfer and personalize intent models across environments with only a few samples per user per condition.

What carries the argument

The central object is a mixture-of-experts Gaussian model whose fusion weights are produced by a Multimodal Context-Aware Weighting module: specialized encoders process user characteristics, vibration and acceleration signals (with temporal attention), and target properties, then three linear layers with a softmax produce per-expert weights. The experts themselves are pre-fitted Ternary-Gaussian models, each a statistical description of a user's endpoint distribution cast as a Gaussian mixture tied to target size, speed, and absolute pointing accuracy. A Gaussian Parameter Adaptive Adjustment module refines each expert's mean and covariance for the target at hand, a diversity constraint keeps the experts from collapsing together, and a ranking-based loss trains the network to assign the ground-truth target the highest likelihood.

What would settle it

Split the MTS-3D dataset by participant, train on 8 participants and test on the other 2 using the same 2-shot protocol, and compare top-1 error; if the error rises from about 0.0044 toward the Expert(3D) baseline of about 0.276, the claimed few-shot transfer does not hold outside the paper's split.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that MAGNeT, a Multimodal Adaptive Gaussian Network, achieves low selection-error rates in moving-target intent inference under few-shot conditions by combining pre-fitted Ternary-Gaussian expert models with a context-aware weighting mechanism. Its central empirical claim is that in a 3D moving-target dataset, a 2-shot variant reaches a top-1 error rate of 0.0044, compared with 0.2759 for the pre-fitted 3D expert model alone, a relative error reduction of about 98 percent; in the 2D dataset it consistently outperforms the individual experts and baselines with as few as one to ten samples per size-speed condition. The authors present this as evidence that dynamically adjusting the weights of multiple Gaussian experts in response to real-time multimodal context can transfer prior statistical knowledge to new settings with minimal new data, while retaining the interpretability of the original Gaussian model framework.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the untested assumption that the roughly 160 training trials used in the 3D few-shot protocol are sufficient to train the context encoders and ranking head without leaking participant- or session-specific patterns into the held-out test set, since the paper never reports whether train and test trials come from the same people or time blocks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployed system could adapt moving-target intent inference to a new user or environment with 1 to 10 taps per size-speed condition, instead of requiring hundreds of calibration samples.
  • Previously fitted models from different postures, devices, or walking conditions become reusable priors that transfer across scenarios rather than being discarded for each new context.
  • Because the learned fusion weights are interpretable, designers could see which environmental factors (e.g., vibration level, posture) drive prediction errors in a given deployment.
  • The ranking-based training objective supports secondary-confirmation interaction assistance, where the system suggests the likely intended target to the user, with a very low top-2 error rate in the 3D setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension beyond the paper is to verify the 3D few-shot result under a strict participant-separated split; if it holds, the approach could plausibly transfer to other hard-to-calibrate settings such as maritime cabins or wheelchair-mounted devices.
  • The context encoder's reliance on vibration could be probed by temporally shifting or shuffling the sensor windows; if performance depends on exact alignment with the touch, the model is using the vibration signal causally, and if not, it may latch on to spurious road-segment correlations.
  • The paper's recipe suggests a broader principle: any domain with pre-fitted statistical pointing priors, such as ray-casting in VR or aiming under turbulence, could be wrapped in a small gating network and adapted with few samples, provided the evaluation protocol cleanly separates training and test users.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. This paper proposes MAGNeT, a framework for intent inference in moving target selection that fuses pre-fitted Ternary-Gaussian expert models using multimodal context-aware weighting, target-specific Gaussian parameter adaptation, and a Gaussian mixture prediction head. The authors introduce two self-collected datasets (MTS-2D and MTS-3D) recorded in a moving vehicle, evaluate MAGNeT under few-shot training protocols (1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 10-shot per condition), and report substantial error-rate reductions, especially on the 3D dataset. The central claim is that context-aware fusion of multiple experts enables few-shot transfer across scenarios while preserving interpretability. Supporting evidence includes a 2D ablation study on expert removal and a qualitative case study of adaptive expert weights.

Significance. If the results are reliable, the paper addresses a practical and timely problem: adapting statistical pointing models to new contexts with very little data, which is relevant to multimedia interaction in vehicles and VR. The interpretable design that preserves the Ternary-Gaussian framework is a genuine strength, as is the effort to collect real in-vehicle data rather than using synthetic simulations. The paper also reports an ablation of expert removal (Table 4), which is a useful step toward understanding the contribution of the prior models. However, the strongest empirical claim rests on a single dramatic 3D result whose supporting details are incomplete, and the 2D evidence is statistically weak. The significance of the contribution therefore depends on resolving the specification and evaluation gaps described below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1.2; Eqs. (6), (8), (9), (11)] The MTS-3D evaluation uses exactly one expert model, Expert(3D), but the methodology requires k expert parameter sets, a k-dimensional softmax weight vector, and a diversity constraint over k(k-1)/2 pairs. The paper never states the value of k used for MTS-3D, how the single Expert(3D) prior is expanded into k experts, or how those experts are initialized before the diversity constraint is applied. If k=1, the Gaussian mixture degenerates to a single expert and the headline claim of 'context-aware fusion of Gaussian experts' is vacuous on the exact dataset that provides the strongest support for the abstract. If k>1, the initialization and adaptation of near-identical priors is unspecified, so the 0.0044 vs. 0.2759 E@1 improvement in Table 3 cannot be assigned to multi-expert fusion rather than to the Gaussian Parameter Adaptive Adjustment module or the ranking loss. This is load-bearing because the abstract names fusion as the mechanism, and no 3D ablation analogous to Table 4 isolates the fusion contribution. Please specify k and the expansion/initialization procedure, and add a 3D ablation that isolates the fusion component.
  2. [Section 6.1.1; Section 6.3] The dataset partitioning is described only as 'uniform sampling across target conditions (W×V)', and the n-shot protocol is defined per participant per W×V combination. The paper does not state whether train and test trials come from the same participants or sessions, whether temporal blocks or experimental sessions are separated, or how the test and validation sets are carved out before the n-shot training set is sampled. With only 10 participants and 384 test / 96 validation samples, same-participant overlap could leak user- and session-specific information into the test set, which would explain the dramatic 3D improvement. This premise is untested and is directly relevant to the central few-shot-transfer claim. Please report the split at the participant and session level, or run a participant-disjoint evaluation, and state whether any trials from the same participant appear in both training and test sets.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3] No statistical significance tests are reported for any comparison. In Table 2, the 2D advantage of MAGNeT over the best expert is within noise: MAGNeT (10-Shot) has E@1 = 0.1239 (SD 0.0064) versus Expert(w-h) 0.1292 (SD 0.0087), and E@2 is essentially unchanged (0.0351 versus 0.0349). The current text overstates this as 'lower error rates' without paired tests. In Table 3, the 3D gap is large, but the reported standard deviations are across random seeds rather than across participants, so they do not address between-participant variability. Please report per-participant paired tests (for example Wilcoxon signed-rank or a mixed-effects model) and effect sizes for the headline comparisons in both tables, and clarify the unit of analysis.
  4. [Section 7] The limitations paragraph acknowledges small dataset size and a single-loop road, but it does not acknowledge the missing k specification for the 3D experiments, the unresolved train/test leakage risk, or the absence of significance testing. As written, the stated limitations do not cover the load-bearing gaps identified in the previous comments, so the paper currently overclaims the few-shot transfer result. Please either add these limitations explicitly or, preferably, resolve them with additional analysis and ablation experiments.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5.2] The abstract contains the ungrammatical phrase 'We take experiments' and Section 5.2 contains the typo 'near-vertially'; both should be corrected to 'We conducted experiments' and 'near-vertically'.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The ranking rule rank(t_i) = arg max_y PDF(t_i) is not the correct Bayes decision rule as written: for an observed endpoint y_obs, prediction should be argmax_i p(y_obs | t_i), whereas the equation as written appears to select a coordinate rather than a target. Please correct the notation or clarify what is intended.
  3. [Section 3; Section 5.3] The problem formulation states that the Ternary-Gaussian model requires 'at least 9 predefined pairs' of Gaussian parameters, while the experimental design in Section 5.3 crosses 4 target sizes with 4 speeds, giving 16 conditions. Please clarify the relationship between the 9 pairs and the 16 W×V conditions.
  4. [Table 3] The E@2 value of 0.0000 with standard deviation 0.0000 for MAGNeT (2-Shot) on MTS-3D is suspiciously exact and should be reported with more precision, or the number of trials and the reason for the zero value should be explained.
  5. [Section 6.5; Figure 6] The weight-learning analysis is qualitative and the text says 'as shown' without providing summary statistics; please report quantitative weight distributions across users and conditions, with confidence intervals, so the reader can verify the claimed pattern.
  6. [Section 6.2] For the clustering-based RMSA split, please report cluster sizes and silhouette scores so that the stability of the G1/G2 division into high- and low-vibration groups can be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MAGNeT's few-shot gains are empirical results from held-out evaluations, not by-construction consequences of its inputs.

full rationale

MAGNeT's derivation chain is not circular. The model is trained with a ranking loss (Eq. 14-15) on sampled training trials and evaluated on a separate test split (Section 6.1.1, Table 1), so the reported error rates are empirical outcomes rather than consequences implied by the model definition. The pre-fitted Ternary-Gaussian experts are fixed inputs from prior studies and are not fitted to the target MTS-2D/MTS-3D datasets; the ablation in Table 4 explicitly tests the effect of removing these priors, which is an empirical check rather than a circular construction. While Expert(3D) is cited from Ref. [28], which shares authors with the present paper, that prior serves only as initialization/baseline for the 3D experiment, and MAGNeT's improvement is measured against it, so the central few-shot claim retains independent empirical content. The paper's failure to specify k for MTS-3D and the absence of a participant-level train/test separation are legitimate evaluation and correctness concerns, but they do not amount to a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests heavily on the pre-fitted Ternary-Gaussian experts as priors and on a handful of hand-chosen hyperparameters. The most fragile inputs are the post hoc RMSA thresholds used to define the G1/G2 reporting groups and the unreported λ_div and K configuration for the 3D experiments. No fictitious physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Softmax temperature τ of context-aware weighting = 2.0
    Chosen by hand in Section 6.1.3; controls the sharpness of expert weights and could be tuned per dataset.
  • Diversity loss weight λ_div = not reported
    Appears in Eq. (14) but its value is never specified, even though it is part of the training objective.
  • Number of experts K = 3 for 2D; unspecified for 3D
    Section 6.1.2 lists three 2D experts but only one 3D expert, while the mixture formulation in Eq. (11) requires K experts; the 3D configuration is undefined.
  • RMSA cluster split thresholds = 0.5773 (2D E_clust), 0.5508 (2D E_mean), 0.4831 (3D E_clust), 0.4671 (3D E_mean)
    Derived post hoc from the same data via K-means and silhouette analysis in Section 6.2; these thresholds define the G1/G2 groups used to report headline error rates.
  • All neural network weights (f_u, f_v, f_a, f_t, CAW, ExpertAdaptation) = learned
    The entire architecture is trained on the target dataset; losses and optimizers are specified, but the learned parameters are not interpretable as physical constants.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ternary-Gaussian model accurately describes endpoint distributions in prior scenarios and is a valid prior for the new context.
    The paper inherits the model from Huang et al. [11] and other prior work; MAGNeT assumes these fitted experts provide useful priors (Section 6.1.2, ablation in Table 4).
  • domain assumption User features (age, gender, gesture) and environmental sensors (acceleration, vibration) contain enough signal to predict intent-relevant context.
    Used to design encoders in Section 4.1; no analysis shows the discriminative value of each modality.
  • domain assumption The ranking loss with negative samples from other targets is a valid surrogate for intent accuracy.
    Section 4.4.1 defines L_rank; it assumes maximizing the relative probability of the correct target minimizes E@1 and E@2.
  • ad hoc to paper The uniform sample split across W by V conditions yields test trials that are independent of training trials and representative of the context.
    Section 6.1.1 states the split is uniform across conditions but does not control for participant or session overlap, which is a load-bearing evaluation assumption.
  • domain assumption The single 2-km campus loop and 10 right-handed participants are representative of complex scenarios in vehicles.
    Section 5 describes the route and participants; limitations in Section 7 acknowledge the narrow scope.
  • standard math Standard statistical background: Gaussian distributions, Bayes' theorem, K-means, silhouette coefficient.
    Used throughout Sections 3, 4, and 6.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MAGNeT: Multimodal Adaptive Gaussian Networks for Intent Inference in Moving Target Selection across Complex Scenarios." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QQMFG5RC

@misc{pith2026250812992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MAGNeT: Multimodal Adaptive Gaussian Networks for Intent Inference in Moving Target Selection across Complex Scenarios},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QQMFG5RC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12992}
}
read the original abstract

Moving target selection in multimedia interactive systems faces unprecedented challenges as users increasingly interact across diverse and dynamic contexts-from live streaming in moving vehicles to VR gaming in varying environments. Existing approaches rely on probabilistic models that relate endpoint distribution to target properties such as size and speed. However, these methods require substantial training data for each new context and lack transferability across scenarios, limiting their practical deployment in diverse multimedia environments where rich multimodal contextual information is readily available. This paper introduces MAGNeT (Multimodal Adaptive Gaussian Networks), which addresses these problems by combining classical statistical modeling with a context-aware multimodal method. MAGNeT dynamically fuses pre-fitted Ternary-Gaussian models from various scenarios based on real-time contextual cues, enabling effective adaptation with minimal training data while preserving model interpretability. We conduct experiments on self-constructed 2D and 3D moving target selection datasets under in-vehicle vibration conditions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MAGNeT achieves lower error rates with few-shot samples by applying context-aware fusion of Gaussian experts from multi-factor conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.12992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A user is performing touch interaction in a bumpy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrative diagram of MAGNeT, which features a Multimodal Context-Aware Weighting module that deciphers how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Interactive gesture and task interface of 3D scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two interactive gestures and task interface of 2D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cases showing how weights are adaptively learned. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    NAIS An and S SI. 1997. Mechanical Vibration and Shock-Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration-Part 1: General Requirements. (1997)

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Bing Cao, Yiming Sun, Pengfei Zhu, and Qinghua Hu. 2023. Multi-modal gated mixture of local-to-global experts for dynamic image fusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 23555–23564

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Sonia Dodd, Jeff Lancaster, Andrew Miranda, Steve Grothe, Bob DeMers, and Bill Rogers. 2014. Touch Screens on the Flight Deck: The Impact of Touch Target Size, Spacing, Touch Technology and Turbulence on Pilot Performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 58, 1 (2014), 6–10. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581...

    work page doi:10.1177/1541931214581002 2014

  4. [4]

    Huajian Fang and Timo Gerkmann. 2023. Uncertainty estimation in deep speech enhancement using complex Gaussian mixture models. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 1–5

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Wensheng Gan, Zhenyao Ning, Zhenlian Qi, and Philip S Yu. 2025. Mixture of Experts (MoE): A Big Data Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16352 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Samuel J Gershman and David M Blei. 2012. A tutorial on Bayesian nonparametric models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56, 1 (2012), 1–12

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Khalad Hasan, Tovi Grossman, and Pourang Irani. 2011. Comet and target ghost: techniques for selecting moving targets. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 839–848. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979065

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    Dudley, Stephen Uzor, Dong Wu, Per Ola Kristensson, and Feng Tian

    Jin Huang, John J. Dudley, Stephen Uzor, Dong Wu, Per Ola Kristensson, and Feng Tian. 2022. Understanding user performance of acquiring targets with motion-in-depth in virtual reality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 163 (2022), 102817. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102817

    arXiv 2022

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Jin Huang and Byungjoo Lee. 2019. Modeling error rates in spatiotemporal moving target selection. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–6

    2019

  2. [10]

    Jin Huang, Feng Tian, Xiangmin Fan, Huawei Tu, Hao Zhang, Xiaolan Peng, and Hongan Wang. 2020. Modeling the Endpoint Uncertainty in Crossing-Based Moving Target Selection. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Jin Huang, Feng Tian, Xiangmin Fan, Xiaolong (Luke) Zhang, and Shumin Zhai

  4. [12]

    Jin Huang, Feng Tian, Nianlong Li, and Xiangmin Fan. 2019. Modeling the Uncertainty in 2D Moving Target Selection. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (New Orleans, LA, USA) (UIST ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, ...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Michael Victor Ilich. 2009. Moving target selection in interactive video . Ph. D. Dissertation. University of British Columbia

    2009

  6. [14]

    Heon-Jeong Kim and Bernard J Martin. 2013. Biodynamic characteristics of upper limb reaching movements of the seated human under whole-body vibration. Journal of applied biomechanics 29, 1 (2013), 12–22

    2013

  7. [15]

    Jiamin Li, Qiang Su, Yitao Yang, Yimin Jiang, Cong Wang, and Hong Xu. 2023. Adaptive gating in mixture-of-experts based language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07188 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zhi Li, Maozheng Zhao, Dibyendu Das, HANG ZHAO, Yan Ma, Wanyu Liu, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Fusheng Wang, IV Ramakrishnan, and Xiaojun Bi. 2022. Select or Suggest? Reinforcement Learning-based Method for High-Accuracy Target Selection on Touchscreens. In Proceedings of the 2022...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Yiqin Lu, Chun Yu, and Yuanchun Shi. 2020. Investigating bubble mechanism for ray-casting to improve 3D target acquisition in virtual reality. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 35–43

    2020

  10. [18]

    Hudson, and Gregory D

    Jennifer Mankoff, Scott E. Hudson, and Gregory D. Abowd. 2000. Providing integrated toolkit-level support for ambiguity in recognition-based interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (The Hague, The Netherlands) (CHI ’00). Associ...

    2000

  11. [19]

    Neil J Mansfield and Setsuo Maeda. 2005. Effect of backrest and torso twist on the apparent mass of the seated body exposed to vertical vibration. Industrial Health 43, 3 (2005), 413–420

    2005

  12. [20]

    Geoffrey McLachlan. 2000. Finite mixture models.A wiley-interscience publication (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Adrian L Jessup Schneider and TC Nicholas Graham. 2023. Supporting aim assistance algorithms through a rapidly trainable, personalized model of players’ spatial and temporal aiming ability. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2023

  14. [22]

    Reza Shadmehr, Maurice A Smith, and John W Krakauer. 2010. Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control.Annual review of neuroscience 33, 1 (2010), 89–108

    2010

  15. [23]

    Lode Vanacken, Tovi Grossman, and Karin Coninx. 2007. Exploring the Effects of Environment Density and Target Visibility on Object Selection in 3D Virtual Environments. In 2007 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces . doi:10.1109/3DUI. 2007.340783

    2007

  16. [24]

    Jing Yi and Zhenzhong Chen. 2024. Variational Mixture of Stochastic Experts Auto-encoder for Multi-modal Recommendation.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Hao Zhang, Jin Huang, Huawei Tu, and Feng Tian. 2023. Shape-Adaptive Ternary- Gaussian Model: Modeling Pointing Uncertainty for Moving Targets of Arbitrary Shapes. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2023

  18. [26]

    Ziyue Zhang, Jin Huang, and Feng Tian. 2020. Modeling the Uncertainty in Pointing of Moving Targets with Arbitrary Shapes. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machine...

    2020

  19. [27]

    yawen zheng, Jin Huang, Juan Liu, Chenglei Yang, and Feng Tian. 2021. A Scenario Adaptive Model for Predicting Error Rates in Moving Target Selection on Smartphones. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (Toulouse & Virtua...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Yawen Zheng, Jin Huang, Hao Zhang, Yulong Bian, Juan Liu, Chenglei Yang, Feng Tian, and Xiangxu Meng. 2025. 3D Ternary-Gaussian model: Modeling pointing uncertainty of 3D moving target selection in virtual reality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 198 (2025), 10...

    2025

  21. [29]

    Suwen Zhu, Yoonsang Kim, Jingjie Zheng, Jennifer Yi Luo, Ryan Qin, Liuping Wang, Xiangmin Fan, Feng Tian, and Xiaojun Bi. 2020. Using Bayes’ Theorem for Command Input: Principle, Models, and Applications. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing ...

    2020

  22. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18)

    Understanding the Uncertainty in 1D Unidirectional Moving Target Selec- tion. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173811

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.