← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteWith cards better215 / 280 · beu-ba377d05e7e537c3

Towards Social AI: A Survey on Understanding Social Interactions

Psychology and cognitive neuroscience · 2409.15316v2

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Towards Social AI: A Survey on Understanding Social Interactions

III Understanding Non-verbal Cues > III-B Gaze and Attention Analysis > III-B 4 Discussion

…e detection or “Looking at Eachother” (LAEO) [ 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 ] . Muller et al. propose using gaze and speaking behavior together to identify eye-contact in multi-party interactions [ 165 ] . In 2019, Fan et al. [ 166 ] introduced the VACATION benchmark with various types of gaze behaviors such as shared attention, mutual gaze and gaze following. They proposed a spatio-temporal graph approach for capturing gaze dynamics between people over time. Further works have developed end-to-end Transformer-based architectures for identifying these gaze behaviors [ 167 , 154 ] .

… ] . Similarly, the Ego4D dataset [ 147 ] includes the “Looking at Me” task, and the related audiovisual “Talking to Me” task as part of their social benchmark. Paralleling the task of identifying shared attention in third-person videos, researchers have explored identifying objects of shared attention across multiple egocentric videos by identifying similarities in views [ 175 , 176 , 177 ] . Fathi et al. [ 178 ] addressed identifying social interaction types via inferring the visual attention of both the camera-wearer and people in their view, including dialogue, monologue, and discussion .

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: With cards better

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = without cards · B = with cards

Both outputs attempt to complete the paragraph, but Output B is a better fit for this position. The draft ends with Fathi et al.'s work on identifying social interaction types via visual attention inference in egocentric settings. Output B directly continues this thread by noting how gaze/attention serve as cues to intentions—connecting back to the egocentric emphasis in the final cited work and naturally bridging to the next paragraph's discussion of Ego4D and egocentric datasets. Output B's phrase 'particularly pronounced in egocentric settings' smoothly transitions to the egocentric focus that follows. Output A raises valid but more speculative concerns about cultural norms and individual differences that lack grounding in the surrounding text; this introduces a new tension not developed elsewhere and feels more like a new section opener than a paragraph completion. Output A's 'This framing, however, leaves open...' creates an unresolved critical note that doesn't match the largely descriptive, cataloguing tone of the draft. Output B maintains coherence with the draft's trajectory toward egocentric applications while Output A's critical pivot would require more space to develop properly.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

Preferred by blind review

Across these works, gaze and attention are treated less as isolated perceptual signals than as cues to the camera wearer's underlying intentions and attention, which in turn shape how social partners and objects are selected. This framing is particularly pronounced in egocentric settings, where the first-person view directly exposes what the wearer is attending to and provides strong cues for inferring their momentary visual attention and intentions.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · Ego-Topo: Environment Affordances From Egocentric Video

First-person video naturally brings the use of a physical environment to the forefront, since it shows the camera wearer interacting fluidly in a space based on his intentions. However, current methods largely separate the observed actions from the persistent space itself. We introduce a model for e…

Read full passage excerpt

First-person video naturally brings the use of a physical environment to the forefront, since it shows the camera wearer interacting fluidly in a space based on his intentions. However, current methods largely separate the observed actions from the persistent space itself. We introduce a model for environment affordances that is learned directly from egocentric video. The main idea is to gain a human-centric model of a physical space (such as a kitchen) that captures (1) the primary spatial zones of interaction and (2) the likely activities they support. Our approach decomposes a space into a topological map derived from first-person activity, organizing an ego-video into a series of visits to the different zones. Further, we show how to link zones across multiple related environments (e.g., from videos of multiple kitchens) to obtain a consolidated representation of environment functionality. On EPIC-Kitchens and EGTEA+, we demonstrate our approach for learning scene affordances and a …

Card 2 · Identifying First-person Camera Wearers in Third-person Videos

We consider scenarios in which we wish to perform joint scene understanding, object tracking, activity recognition, and other tasks in environments in which multiple people are wearing body-worn cameras while a third-person static camera also captures the scene. To do this, we need to establish pers…

Read full passage excerpt

We consider scenarios in which we wish to perform joint scene understanding, object tracking, activity recognition, and other tasks in environments in which multiple people are wearing body-worn cameras while a third-person static camera also captures the scene. To do this, we need to establish person-level correspondences across first- and third-person videos, which is challenging because the camera wearer is not visible from his/her own egocentric video, preventing the use of direct feature matching. In this paper, we propose a new semi-Siamese Convolutional Neural Network architecture to address this novel challenge. We formulate the problem as learning a joint embedding space for first- and third-person videos that considers both spatial- and motion-domain cues. A new triplet loss function is designed to minimize the distance between correct first- and third-person matches while maximizing the distance between incorrect ones. This end-to-end approach performs significantly better t …

Card 3 · Unsupervised Learning of Important Objects from First-Person Videos

A first-person camera, placed at a person's head, captures, which objects are important to the camera wearer. Most prior methods for this task learn to detect such important objects from the manually labeled first-person data in a supervised fashion. However, important objects are strongly related t…

Read full passage excerpt

A first-person camera, placed at a person's head, captures, which objects are important to the camera wearer. Most prior methods for this task learn to detect such important objects from the manually labeled first-person data in a supervised fashion. However, important objects are strongly related to the camera wearer's internal state such as his intentions and attention, and thus, only the person wearing the camera can provide the importance labels. Such a constraint makes the annotation process costly and limited in scalability. In this work, we show that we can detect important objects in first-person images without the supervision by the camera wearer or even third-person labelers. We formulate an important detection problem as an interplay between the 1) segmentation and 2) recognition agents. The segmentation agent first proposes a possible important object segmentation mask for each image, and then feeds it to the recognition agent, which learns to predict an important object ma …

Card 4 · The Audio-Visual Conversational Graph: From an Egocentric-Exocentric Perspective

In recent years, the thriving development of research related to egocentric videos has provided a unique perspective for the study of conversational interactions, where both visual and audio signals play a crucial role. While most prior work focus on learning about behaviors that directly involve th…

Read full passage excerpt

In recent years, the thriving development of research related to egocentric videos has provided a unique perspective for the study of conversational interactions, where both visual and audio signals play a crucial role. While most prior work focus on learning about behaviors that directly involve the camera wearer, we introduce the Ego-Exocentric Conversational Graph Prediction problem, marking the first attempt to infer exocentric conversational interactions from egocentric videos. We propose a unified multi-modal framework -- Audio-Visual Conversational Attention (AV-CONV), for the joint prediction of conversation behaviors -- speaking and listening -- for both the camera wearer as well as all other social partners present in the egocentric video. Specifically, we adopt the self-attention mechanism to model the representations across-time, across-subjects, and across-modalities. To validate our method, we conduct experiments on a challenging egocentric video dataset that includes mul …

Card 5 · Using Cross-Model EgoSupervision to Learn Cooperative Basketball Intention

We present a first-person method for cooperative basketball intention prediction: we predict with whom the camera wearer will cooperate in the near future from unlabeled first-person images. This is a challenging task that requires inferring the camera wearer's visual attention, and decoding the soc…

Read full passage excerpt

We present a first-person method for cooperative basketball intention prediction: we predict with whom the camera wearer will cooperate in the near future from unlabeled first-person images. This is a challenging task that requires inferring the camera wearer's visual attention, and decoding the social cues of other players. Our key observation is that a first-person view provides strong cues to infer the camera wearer's momentary visual attention, and his/her intentions. We exploit this observation by proposing a new cross-model EgoSupervision learning scheme that allows us to predict with whom the camera wearer will cooperate in the near future, without using manually labeled intention labels. Our cross-model EgoSupervision operates by transforming the outputs of a pretrained pose-estimation network, into pseudo ground truth labels, which are then used as a supervisory signal to train a new network for a cooperative intention task. We evaluate our method, and show that it achieves si …

Model-reported card use

Card 3 · fact

Affected output: gaze and attention are treated less as isolated perceptual signals than as cues to the camera wearer's underlying intentions and attention

Model explanation: This row supplies the premise that what the camera wearer attends to is tied to their internal state of intentions and attention, which grounds the synthesis sentence's framing of gaze as a cue to underlying intentions.

Card 5 · fact

Affected output: the first-person view directly exposes what the wearer is attending to and provides strong cues for inferring their momentary visual attention and intentions

Model explanation: This row directly licenses the claim that the first-person view provides strong cues for inferring the wearer's momentary visual attention and intentions in egocentric settings.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

Not preferred in this comparison

Across these settings, gaze behavior is typically treated as an observable proxy for underlying social attention, with tasks such as LAEO, shared attention, and gaze following operationalizing distinct patterns of looking. This framing, however, leaves open how such cues should be interpreted when cultural norms or individual differences alter the mapping between gaze and attention.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

The blinded model review preferred the Evidence version. Its original rationale appears below.

Read the original model judgment

Output A contains unsupported claims. The draft discusses gaze behavior as a technical signal for tasks like LAEO, shared attention, and gaze following, but does not discuss 'cultural norms or individual differences' altering 'the mapping between gaze and attention'—this introduces new, unsupported material about cultural variation and individual differences that appears nowhere in the draft or sources. Output B, by contrast, grounds its continuation in the egocentric perspective theme that is actually present in the draft (Ego4D, egocentric videos, camera-wearer attention) and supported by sources like the Ego-Topo snippet ('first-person video naturally brings the use of a physical environment to the forefront...based on his intentions') and the cross-model EgoSupervision snippet ('first-person view provides strong cues to infer the camera wearer's momentary visual attention, and his/her intentions'). B's framing about 'camera wearer's underlying intentions and attention' directly connects to the draft's discussion of Fathi et al. inferring 'visual attention of both the camera-wearer' and the Ego4D tasks, without adding unsupported speculative claims.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.