Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 70 references

EgoTrigger: Toward Audio-Driven Image Capture for Human Memory Enhancement in All-Day Energy-Efficient Smart Glasses

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that gating a smart-glasses camera with hand-object interaction audio uses 54% fewer frames while keeping episodic-memory question-answering accuracy within about two percentage points of continuous capture.

desk verdict Useful dataset and well-motivated idea, but the headline frame-reduction claim rests on a non-causal trigger-timing assumption that needs fixing before the results can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.01915 v1 pith:J254IEUX submitted 2025-08-03 cs.CV cs.ETcs.HCcs.LGcs.SDeess.AS

Akshay Paruchuri , Sinan Hersek , Lavisha Aggarwal , Qiao Yang , Xin Liu , Achin Kulshrestha , Andrea Colaco , Henry Fuchs
show 1 more author
Ishan Chatterjee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.ETcs.HCcs.LGcs.SDeess.AS
keywords audio-gatedcameracapturesmartglassesenergy-efficientsensinghand-objectinteractiondetectionegocentricvideounderstandingepisodicmemoryquestionansweringon-deviceaudioclassification
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 an always-on microphone, not the camera, can decide when smart glasses should record video for memory assistance. The proposed system listens for hand-object interaction sounds—drawer opens, bottle caps, keyboard typing—and fires the camera only during those moments, on the theory that such interactions are the most memory-relevant. If this works, all-day smart glasses become more plausible, because continuous camera capture and wireless transmission are the main battery drains. The authors report that this audio-gated capture uses 54% fewer frames on average while keeping question-answering accuracy within about two percentage points of continuous capture on an episodic memory task. They also contribute HME-QA, a 340-pair egocentric question-answer dataset curated to guarantee audio, so future audio-centric memory methods can be tested fairly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a binary hand-object-interaction classifier built from a pretrained YAMNet embedding extractor—a lightweight convolutional audio network trained on a large sound-event corpus—plus a four-layer dense classification head with dropout. A sliding-window sampler feeds 4-second audio clips with a 2-second hop into the classifier, and the HOI posterior probability drives the camera trigger. Two control policies convert the probability into capture intervals: a fixed "off" duration after each trigger and a hysteresis rule with separate on/off thresholds to prevent rapid toggling. In offline evaluation, the predicted capture intervals are used to black out untriggered frames in the original video, so downstream video QA runs on a temporally coherent but sparsely visible stream.

What would settle it

A held-out set of egocentric audio clips with human-verified HOI labels made from listening only, not from narration, would settle the claim: if the classifier's HOI F1 falls well below the reported 0.86, or if triggered capture loses more than about 2 accuracy points on HME-QA, then audio gating is not sufficient for memory capture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that audio evidence of a hand-object interaction is a sufficient proxy for "now is the moment worth photographing" in an episodic memory system. EgoTrigger encodes sliding 4-second audio windows with a lightweight convolutional audio network and passes the embeddings through a small dense classifier that outputs an HOI probability; when that probability crosses a threshold, the camera switches on for either a fixed duration or a hysteresis-controlled interval. The authors simulate triggered capture on upstream video for their new HME-QA dataset and a filtered standard egocentric QA benchmark, then black out frames that the trigger would have skipped. The fixed-duration trigger ET-1s retains 75.7% versus 77.3% full-capture accuracy on HME-QA while cutting frames by 54.39%, and 40.1% versus 41.08% on the standard benchmark with 54.28% fewer frames; uniform decimation loses more accuracy for more savings. From this the paper concludes that context-aware audio gating preserves the information-dense interaction moments that memory questions target, without needing continuous video.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that hand-object interactions can be reliably recognized from audio, yet all training labels were generated by a large language model from narration text plus audio, not from an independent acoustic ground truth; if those labels simply echo what the narration says, the trigger's real-world accuracy and the downstream QA gains could vanish in silent or masked interactions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On HME-QA, the fixed-duration variant ET-1s cuts frames by 54.39% and bitrate from 5.47 to 2.50 Mbps while losing only 1.7 accuracy points (75.7% vs 77.3%).
  • On the filtered standard egocentric QA benchmark, ET-1s cuts frames by 54.28% and bitrate from 1.31 to 0.60 Mbps while losing 0.98 accuracy points (40.1% vs 41.08%).
  • Uniform frame decimation saves more frames (about 79.5%) but costs 5.4 to 6.5 accuracy points, so selective capture dominates naive decimation on the accuracy-efficiency trade-off.
  • A hardware prototype with real power metering shows EgoTrigger's average draw at 4.11 W versus 4.97 W for continuous capture—a 17.3% saving—and avoids the 5.51 W cost of continuous wireless transmission.
  • The audio classifier compresses to 3.77 MB with mobile inference latency around 12 ms, indicating the gating itself can run on-device.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Some memory-relevant actions are silent, so a natural extension is to fuse other low-power sensors such as an IMU as secondary triggers; this would make the approach robust against the masking-noise limitation identified in the paper.
  • The similar frame-reduction percentages on the two datasets (about 54% each) suggest the savings is driven mainly by the rate of HOI events in egocentric streams, not by dataset-specific content; whether this holds on lower-HOI, more observational memory tasks remains an open test.
  • A direct self-supervised alternative—using a vision model to detect HOI in unlabeled video as weak labels for the audio model—would remove the dependence on narration-derived labels; if such labels suffice, the trigger could be scaled to new environments without manual annotation.
  • The current evaluation only blacks out frames rather than truly switching the sensor off, so real-device power savings could differ; an end-to-end glasses prototype with the full trigger stack is the decisive next experiment.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes EgoTrigger, a system for smart glasses that uses a lightweight audio classifier (YAMNet plus a custom head) to detect hand-object interaction (HOI) sounds and gate camera capture, thereby reducing the number of frames recorded for episodic memory question-answering tasks. The authors introduce a new dataset, HME-QA, with 340 human-curated QA pairs from 50 full-length Ego4D videos with audio, and they evaluate EgoTrigger against continuous capture and naive decimation on both HME-QA and a filtered QA-Ego4D split. They report that EgoTrigger with a fixed 1-second OFF period (ET-1s) reduces frame count by about 54% on both datasets while keeping QA accuracy within 1–2 percentage points of the full-capture baseline. They also provide a Raspberry Pi prototype measurement showing a 17.3% power reduction relative to continuous capture, and they estimate further savings from avoiding wireless transmission of the skipped frames.

Significance. If the reported results are valid, the paper offers a practical, low-cost sensing strategy for all-day smart glasses: using audio as a gate for the camera pipeline. The frame-reduction numbers are deterministic functions of the classifier outputs and thresholds, the HME-QA dataset is a useful new resource for egocentric memory QA with guaranteed audio, and the authors provide both an empirical power prototype and an analysis of robustness to noise and false positives. These are concrete strengths. The central claim, however, depends critically on the temporal causality of the simulated trigger, and the classifier's training labels are LLM-generated, so the significance of the contribution should be assessed after those issues are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 6.2] The trigger timing in the offline simulation is non-causal. The window is defined as xi = X[i·wh : i·wh + wd] with wd=4 s and wh=2 s, and the paper states that "If the trigger activates at the start time tstart = i·wh of window i, the system remains active for [tstart, tstart + Tfixed]." A classifier processing window i cannot emit its decision until i·wh + wd, i.e., 4 s after the window start, so the simulation grants the system up to 4 s of lookahead. The frame-reduction figures in Tables 4 and 5 and the bitrate/energy estimates built on them therefore include frames that a real-time system without a continuously running camera buffer could not know to capture. Please rerun the simulation with the trigger activated at the classification decision time (or at tstart + wd, possibly with a fixed delay) and report the resulting accuracy and frame reduction; the central claim of "54% fewer frames with comparable performance" is not yet established for a causal implementation.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Appendix B] The HOI classifier is trained and evaluated against binary labels generated by Gemini 1.5 Pro from the Ego4DSounds clip descriptions and audio. As the prompt in Appendix B shows, the decision is based primarily on clip_text (the narration), which reflects the semantics of the action rather than whether an acoustically detectable HOI sound actually occurs. The reported F1 scores (Table 1) and false-positive rates (Table 2) may therefore overstate real-world trigger accuracy in settings with silent or masked interactions. The Limitations section acknowledges this risk, but the evaluation does not quantify it. Please provide a human-annotated acoustic ground-truth subset (or an analysis of label noise) to bound this effect, or present the QA results under a scenario where trigger accuracy is degraded to a level consistent with the observed classifier performance.
  3. [Tables 3–5 and Section 6.3] The QA accuracy differences between EgoTrigger and the Full baseline are reported without confidence intervals or significance testing. The claim of "comparable performance" rests on differences of 0.98–1.7 percentage points (HME-QA: 77.3 vs. 75.7; QA-Ego4D: 41.08 vs. 40.1), and it is unclear whether these gaps are within the noise of the LLM-based evaluation protocol. Please report bootstrap confidence intervals over QA pairs or another appropriate measure of uncertainty, and discuss whether the observed gaps are statistically distinguishable from the Full baseline. This is a smaller concern than the timing issue, but it directly affects the strength of the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6.3] The abstract states "54% fewer frames on average," while Tables 4 and 5 give slightly different reductions (54.39% and 54.28%). Please specify what is being averaged and over which settings, or report a single pooled number with the per-dataset values.
  2. [Section 7.3] The 770 mW streaming estimate is introduced without derivation or a reference. Please provide the calculation or citation so readers can assess the energy-model assumptions.
  3. [Figures 1 and 3] The text contains several formatting artifacts, most notably "EgoT rigger" (e.g., Figure 1 caption and abstract) and a non-rendered equation in Section 5. Please correct these typos and ensure the final PDF renders all math correctly.
  4. [Section 5 and Appendix C] The main text says the judge uses seed 1337 and temperature 0.2; the answer-generation step is described only in Appendix C. Please state explicitly in Section 5 that the answer generator uses the same fixed seed and temperature, so readers know the evaluation is reproducible.
  5. [Table 2] The false-positive rate (FPR) on ESC-50 and Ego4DSounds is reported as a single number, but it is unclear what threshold and what positive-class definition are used. Please clarify the threshold and the definition of a false positive for those experiments.
  6. [Section 4.2] The HME-QA curation process relied on a single expert annotator. A brief statement about inter-annotator agreement or a second-pass review would strengthen confidence in the dataset quality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: frame-reduction and QA metrics are computed from trigger outputs and held-out evaluation, not fitted to the target results.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The 54% frame reduction is a deterministic consequence of applying the trained HOI classifier with sliding windows and thresholds to pre-recorded audio, then blacking out frames outside the predicted activation intervals (Sections 3.1 and 6.2). No parameter is fitted to the reported QA accuracies, and no equation is defined in terms of its own output. The LLM-generated HOI labels (Appendix B) and the LLM-as-a-judge QA protocol (Appendix C) are measurement-validity concerns rather than circularity: the classifier receives audio only, and the QA answers depend on which frames are actually retained in the processed video. The non-causal trigger timing noted in Section 3.1, where activation is declared at the start of a window whose classification completes only at the window's end, is a real correctness and simulation-fidelity issue for real-time deployment, but it is not a circular derivation. Similarly, the HME-QA dataset is curated around HOI moments, which aligns the evaluation with the trigger's design, but alignment is not equivalence by construction: the classifier can still miss events, and blacked-out frames can remove answer-relevant details. Because the findings do not reduce to their inputs by construction, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on transfer learning from YAMNet, the validity of LLM-generated labels and LLM judging, the simulation of blacked-out frames as a proxy for off-camera periods, and an unverified power estimate. These are the costs the reader pays upstream.

free parameters (4)
  • Decision threshold tau = 0.4 (Section 3.2)
    Determines when to trigger camera capture; chosen without a downstream accuracy sweep, though classification metrics are reported across thresholds.
  • Fixed OFF duration T_fixed = 1 second (ET-1s)
    Camera stays on for 1 second after a trigger; not swept in the QA evaluation.
  • Hysteresis thresholds tau_on and tau_off = 0.8 and 0.7 (ET-Hyst.)
    Chosen to prevent rapid state changes; no sensitivity analysis on downstream QA.
  • Sliding window duration and hop = wd=4s, wh=2s
    Defines the audio analysis grid; these are example values cited in Section 3.1.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption YAMNet's pretrained embeddings provide sufficient features for HOI audio detection after fine-tuning.
    The entire trigger rests on this transfer-learning choice; no comparison against other audio encoders is provided (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption Hand-object interactions in egocentric video are usually accompanied by audible cues.
    This is the premise of the trigger; the paper acknowledges silent actions as a limitation (Section 8).
  • domain assumption Gemini 1.5 Pro's binary HOI labels are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for training and evaluation.
    Labels are generated from audio plus narration without human verification on the train/test split (Appendix B).
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge with Gemini 1.5 Pro produces valid correctness scores for the episodic memory QA task.
    Accuracy is computed as the fraction of ratings >= 3 by a Gemini judge; no human agreement study is reported (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Blacking out non-triggered frames in the original video preserves the same information loss as the camera being off.
    The simulation in Section 6.2 keeps original video duration and temporal structure; actual hardware would produce no frames, not black frames.
  • domain assumption Continuous high-resolution video streaming consumes approximately 770 mW.
    Stated in Section 7.3 without derivation or datasheet citation; used to motivate energy savings.
  • domain assumption The Raspberry Pi prototype's relative power measurements transfer to commercial smart glasses.
    Authors note commercial hardware would differ but expect relative savings to be comparable (Section 7.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EgoTrigger: Toward Audio-Driven Image Capture for Human Memory Enhancement in All-Day Energy-Efficient Smart Glasses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J254IEUX

@misc{pith2026250801915,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EgoTrigger: Toward Audio-Driven Image Capture for Human Memory Enhancement in All-Day Energy-Efficient Smart Glasses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J254IEUX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.01915}
}
read the original abstract

All-day smart glasses are likely to emerge as platforms capable of continuous contextual sensing, uniquely positioning them for unprecedented assistance in our daily lives. Integrating the multi-modal AI agents required for human memory enhancement while performing continuous sensing, however, presents a major energy efficiency challenge for all-day usage. Achieving this balance requires intelligent, context-aware sensor management. Our approach, EgoTrigger, leverages audio cues from the microphone to selectively activate power-intensive cameras, enabling efficient sensing while preserving substantial utility for human memory enhancement. EgoTrigger uses a lightweight audio model (YAMNet) and a custom classification head to trigger image capture from hand-object interaction (HOI) audio cues, such as the sound of a drawer opening or a medication bottle being opened. In addition to evaluating on the QA-Ego4D dataset, we introduce and evaluate on the Human Memory Enhancement Question-Answer (HME-QA) dataset. Our dataset contains 340 human-annotated first-person QA pairs from full-length Ego4D videos that were curated to ensure that they contained audio, focusing on HOI moments critical for contextual understanding and memory. Our results show EgoTrigger can use 54% fewer frames on average, significantly saving energy in both power-hungry sensing components (e.g., cameras) and downstream operations (e.g., wireless transmission), while achieving comparable performance on datasets for an episodic memory task. We believe this context-aware triggering strategy represents a promising direction for enabling energy-efficient, functional smart glasses capable of all-day use -- supporting applications like helping users recall where they placed their keys or information about their routine activities (e.g., taking medications).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.01915 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present EgoTrigger, an image capture approach designed for resource-constrained smart eyeglass systems. EgoTrigger uses a lightweight audio classification model and a custom classification head to trigger image capture from hand-object interaction (HOI) audio cues, such as the sound of a medication bottle being opened. Subsequently, image capture can be triggered off either based on a fixed duration (e.g., 1 seco… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. EgoTrigger. Our approach focuses on audio from smart glasses that are processed by a pre-trained YAMNet model to extract 1024- dimensional embeddings, which are passed through a 4-layer dense network that serves as our custom, binary classification head. The resulting class probabilities for C0 (indicates no hand-object interaction, or HOI) and C1 (HOI) are used to trigger image capture, enabling gated visual sensin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sample QA Pairs from Datasets. Example question-answer pairs from QA-Ego4D (top) and HME-QA (bottom), each paired with the relevant image sequence from which the answer is derived. 5 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP We trained the EgoTrigger audio classifier using a batch size of 64, categorical cross-entropy loss, and the AdamW [31, 33] optimizer with a learning rate η = 3×10−3 and weight decay λ = 0.01. Training was conducted f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: C1 Metrics vs. Threshold. Precision, recall, and F1-score for class C1 as a function of decision threshold. Precision remains high across thresholds, while recall decreases more rapidly. F1-score peaks near the region where precision and recall are balanced, guiding th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: EgoTrigger QA Results. Sample question-answer outcomes on QA-Ego4D (left) and HME-QA (right) using different video sampling strategies. EgoTrigger variants preserve key visual content necessary for correct answers while significantly reducing the number of frames, comp…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accuracy vs. Frame Reduction Tradeoff. EgoTrigger variants (ET-1s and ET-Hyst.) lie close to the Pareto frontier, balancing QA accuracy with reduced frame count. Results are shown for both HME-QA and QA-Ego4D datasets, with dataset indicated by marker shape (circles fo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Achiam, S

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. 1

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Anthropic

    A. Anthropic. The claude 3 model family: Opus, sonnet, haiku. Claude-3 Model Card, 1:1, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Aytar, C

    Y . Aytar, C. V ondrick, and A. Torralba. Soundnet: Learning sound repre- sentations from unlabeled video. Advances in neural information process- ing systems, 29, 2016. 8

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    J.-H. Bahk, H. Fang, K. Yazawa, and A. Shakouri. Flexible thermoelectric materials and device optimization for wearable energy harvesting. Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 3(40):10362–10374, 2015. 2

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Bärmann and A

    L. Bärmann and A. Waibel. Where did i leave my keys?-episodic-memory- based question answering on egocentric videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1560–1568, 2022. 2, 4, 11

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Billinghurst and T

    M. Billinghurst and T. Starner. Wearable devices: new ways to manage information. Computer, 32(1):57–64, 1999. doi: 10.1109/2.738305 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1109/2.738305 1999

  7. [7]

    Chakravarthi, A

    B. Chakravarthi, A. A. Verma, K. Daniilidis, C. Fermuller, and Y . Yang. Re- cent event camera innovations: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13627,

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    C. Chen, P. Peng, A. Baid, Z. Xue, W.-N. Hsu, D. Harwath, and K. Grau- man. Action2sound: Ambient-aware generation of action sounds from egocentric videos. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 277–295. Springer, 2024. 4, 11

    work page 2024

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    K. Chen, T. Wan, N. Matsuda, A. Ninan, A. Chapiro, and Q. Sun. Pea- pods: Perceptual evaluation of algorithms for power optimization in xr displays. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 43(4):1–17, 2024. 2

    2024

  2. [10]

    Y . Chu, J. Xu, X. Zhou, Q. Yang, S. Zhang, Z. Yan, C. Zhou, and J. Zhou. Qwen-audio: Advancing universal audio understanding via unified large- scale audio-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07919, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Corporation

    V . Corporation. Vuzix m400™ smart glasses. Accessed: 2025-04-10. 1, 2

    2025

  4. [12]

    David, J

    R. David, J. Duke, A. Jain, V . Janapa Reddi, N. Jeffries, J. Li, N. Kreeger, I. Nappier, M. Natraj, T. Wang, et al. Tensorflow lite micro: Embedded machine learning for tinyml systems. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 3:800–811, 2021. 4

    2021

  5. [13]

    R. W. DeVaul, A. S. Pentland, and V . R. Corey. The memory glasses: Subliminal vs. overt memory support with imperfect information. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Com- puters, ISWC ’03, p. 146. IEEE Computer Society, USA, 2003. 1

    2003

  6. [14]

    Developers

    T. Developers. Tensorflow. Zenodo, 2022. 3

    2022

  7. [15]

    G. A. Edge. Audio classification guide, 2024. Accessed: 2025-04-11. 4

    2024

  8. [16]

    Eyben, M

    F. Eyben, M. Wöllmer, and B. Schuller. Opensmile: the munich versatile and fast open-source audio feature extractor. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on Multimedia, pp. 1459–1462, 2010. 2

    2010

  9. [17]

    Gao, T.-H

    R. Gao, T.-H. Oh, K. Grauman, and L. Torresani. Listen to look: Action recognition by previewing audio. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 10457–10467, 2020. 2

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. F. Gemmeke, D. P. Ellis, D. Freedman, A. Jansen, W. Lawrence, R. C. Moore, M. Plakal, and M. Ritter. Audio set: An ontology and human- labeled dataset for audio events. In 2017 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pp. 776–780. IEEE,

    2017

  11. [19]

    E. J. Gonzalez, I. Chatterjee, M. Gonzalez-Franco, A. Colaço, and K. Ahuja. Intent-driven input device arbitration for xr. In Extended Ab- stracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–5, 2024. 2

    2024

  12. [20]

    Grauman, A

    K. Grauman, A. Westbury, E. Byrne, Z. Chavis, A. Furnari, R. Girdhar, J. Hamburger, H. Jiang, M. Liu, X. Liu, et al. Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 18995–19012,

  13. [21]

    Herglotz, M

    C. Herglotz, M. Kränzler, R. Ludwig, and A. Kaup. Video decoding energy reduction using temporal-domain filtering. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Green Multimedia Systems, pp. 22–27,

  14. [22]

    Hershey, S

    S. Hershey, S. Chaudhuri, D. P. W. Ellis, J. F. Gemmeke, A. Jansen, C. Moore, M. Plakal, D. Platt, R. A. Saurous, B. Seybold, M. Slaney, R. Weiss, and K. Wilson. Cnn architectures for large-scale audio classi- fication. In International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Sign...

    2017

  15. [23]

    J. Hoisko. Context triggered visual episodic memory prosthesis. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Com- puters, ISWC ’00, p. 185. IEEE Computer Society, USA, 2000. 1

    2000

  16. [24]

    F. Ianì. Embodied memories: Reviewing the role of the body in memory processes. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 26(6):1747–1766, 2019. 2, 3

    2019

  17. [25]

    Jindal, K

    A. Jindal, K. Wolski, K. Myszkowski, and R. K. Mantiuk. Perceptual model for adaptive local shading and refresh rate. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 40(6):1–18, 2021. 2

    2021

  18. [26]

    Kalantarian, N

    H. Kalantarian, N. Alshurafa, M. Pourhomayoun, and M. Sarrafzadeh. Power optimization for wearable devices. In2015 IEEE International Con- ference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops (PerCom Workshops), pp. 568–573. IEEE, 2015. 2

    2015

  19. [27]

    Kazakos, A

    E. Kazakos, A. Nagrani, A. Zisserman, and D. Damen. Epic-fusion: Audio- visual temporal binding for egocentric action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 5492– 5501, 2019. 2

    2019

  20. [28]

    I. Khan, S. Khusro, S. Ali, and J. Ahmad. Sensors are power hungry: An investigation of smartphone sensors impact on battery power from lifelogging perspective. Bahria University Journal of Information & Communication Technology, 9(2):8–19, 2016. 1, 2

    2016

  21. [29]

    M. U. Khattak, M. F. Naeem, J. Hassan, M. Naseer, F. Tombari, F. S. Khan, and S. Khan. How good is my video lmm? complex video rea- soning and robustness evaluation suite for video-lmms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03690, 2024. 4, 11

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kindt, D

    P. Kindt, D. Yunge, M. Gopp, and S. Chakraborty. Adaptive online power- management for bluetooth low energy. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), pp. 2695–2703. IEEE, 2015. 2

    2015

  23. [31]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. 4

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Krishna, H

    A. Krishna, H. Shankaranarayanan, H. P. Oleti, A. Chauhan, A. van Schaik, M. Mehendale, and C. S. Thakur. Tinyml acoustic classification using raman accelerator and neuromorphic cochlea. In 2023 IEEE Asia Pacific Conference On Postgraduate Research In Microelectronics And Elec...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. 4

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. Maaz, H. Rasheed, S. Khan, and F. S. Khan. Video-chatgpt: Towards detailed video understanding via large vision and language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05424, 2023. 4, 11

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mangalam, R

    K. Mangalam, R. Akshulakov, and J. Malik. Egoschema: A diagnostic benchmark for very long-form video language understanding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46212–46244, 2023. 2, 4

    2023

  28. [36]

    Introducing orion, our first true augmented reality glasses, Sept

    Meta. Introducing orion, our first true augmented reality glasses, Sept

  29. [37]

    Plizzari, A

    C. Plizzari, A. Tonioni, Y . Xian, A. Kulshrestha, and F. Tombari. Omnia de egotempo: Benchmarking temporal understanding of multi-modal llms in egocentric videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13646, 2025. 2, 4, 11

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    W. B. Qaim, A. Ometov, A. Molinaro, I. Lener, C. Campolo, E. S. Lohan, and J. Nurmi. Towards energy efficiency in the internet of wearable things: A systematic review. IEEE Access, 8:175412–175435, 2020. 2

    2020

  31. [39]

    X. Qi, M. Keally, G. Zhou, Y . Li, and Z. Ren. Adasense: Adapting sam- pling rates for activity recognition in body sensor networks. In 2013 IEEE 19th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS), pp. 163–172. IEEE, 2013. 2

    2013

  32. [40]

    Y . Qian, H. Zhang, Y . Yang, and Z. Gan. How easy is it to fool your multimodal llms? an empirical analysis on deceptive prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13220, 2(7), 2024. 4, 11

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Qualcomm Technologies

    I. Qualcomm Technologies. Snapdragon ar1 gen 1 platform. https://www.qualcomm.com/products/mobile/snapdragon/ xr-vr-ar/snapdragon-ar1-gen-1-platform , 2023. Accessed: 2025-04-11. 4

    2023

  34. [42]

    Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

    Ray-Ban and Meta. Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses. https://www. ray-ban.com/usa/discover-ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses . Ac- cessed: 2025-04-07. 1, 2

    2025

  35. [43]

    B. J. Rhodes. The wearable remembrance agent: a system for augmented memory. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, ISWC ’97, p. 123. IEEE Computer Society, USA,

  36. [44]

    Rybakov, N

    O. Rybakov, N. Kononenko, N. Subrahmanya, M. Visontai, and S. Lau- renzo. Streaming keyword spotting on mobile devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.06720, 2020. 4

    2005 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. Shen, J. J. Dudley, and P. O. Kristensson. Encode-store-retrieve: Aug- menting human memory through language-encoded egocentric perception. In 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 923–931. IEEE, 2024. 2

    2024

  38. [46]

    Sunder, U

    R. Sunder, U. K. Lilhore, A. K. Rai, E. Ghith, M. Tlija, S. Simaiya, and A. H. Majeed. Smartapm framework for adaptive power management in wearable devices using deep reinforcement learning. Scientific Reports, 15(1):6911, 2025. 2

    2025

  39. [47]

    S. Tan, T. Nagarajan, and K. Grauman. Egodistill: Egocentric head motion distillation for efficient video understanding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:33485–33498, 2023. 2

    2023

  40. [48]

    G. Team, R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, J.-B. Alayrac, J. Yu, R. Soricut, J. Schalk- wyk, A. M. Dai, A. Hauth, K. Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    B. Tian, Y . Pang, M. Huzaifa, S. Wang, and S. Adve. Towards energy- efficiency by navigating the trilemma of energy, latency, and accuracy. In 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 913–922. IEEE, 2024. 2

    2024

  42. [50]

    J. Yang, S. Liu, H. Guo, Y . Dong, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, P. Wang, Z. Zhou, B. Xie, Z. Wang, et al. Egolife: Towards egocentric life assistant. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03803, 2025. 2 A G ENERATION OF INITIAL QA PAIRS FOR HME-QA To address the need for an egocentric QA dataset w...

    2025

  43. [52]

    Synthesize information from all sources

    Analyze All Inputs: Thoroughly review the video content, listen to the audio, read the narration transcript, and examine the moments annotation provided below. Synthesize information from all sources. // Video UID: {video_uid} // Narration: {narration_pass_2} // Moments Annota...

  44. [53]

    Where did I put my keys?

    Identify Memorable Events/Details: Focus on actions, object interactions, state changes, user experiences, and potential habits that are significant for memory recall. Avoid redundancy and pay close attention to: • Object Placement: Where were objects placed or left? (e.g., "W...

  45. [54]

    I"). • Answer: Provide a concise but informative, factual answer to the question, directly supported by the video, narration, and/or moments annotation. Frame the answer using

    Formulate Question-Answer Pairs: For each identified memorable event/detail: • Question: Craft a natural language question that someone might ask to recall that specific piece of information. Frame it from the perspective of the person in the video (using "I"). • Answer: Provi...

  46. [55]

    video_uid

    Determine Timestamps: For each QA pair, identify the start_time_sec and end_time_sec from the video that correspond to the event providing the answer to the question. • start_time_sec: The moment the relevant action/state observation/experience begins. • end_time_sec: The mome...

  47. [56]

    This text describes the action performed by the camera wearer (#C)

    Focus on clip_text: Carefully examine the content of the clip_text field for each object. This text describes the action performed by the camera wearer (#C)

  48. [57]

    Determine Interaction: Decide if the described action primarily involves the camera wearer (#C) interacting with an object using their hands

  49. [58]

    #C picks a bag

    Apply Specific Criteria: • Consider it hand-object interaction (classify as 1) if: The clip_text clearly describes the person manipulating, holding, picking up, placing, using, touching, opening, or closing an object with their hands. Examples: "#C picks a bag", "#C opens the ...

  50. [59]

    video_uid

    Output Classification: Based on the above, determine a single binary integer value (1 if it describes hand-object interaction, 0 otherwise) for each clip object. Output Format: Generate ONLY a single, valid JSON array (list) containing results for all clip objects provided in ...

  51. [60]

    Carefully watch and listen to the entire video clip

  52. [61]

    Provide a concise and factual answer to the specific question asked above, based solely on the content of the video

  53. [62]

    Cannot be determined from the video

    Do not infer information not present in the video. If the answer cannot be determined from the video, state that clearly (e.g., "Cannot be determined from the video.")

  54. [63]

    question

    Format your response as a single JSON object containing the original "question" and the corresponding "answer" you generated. Output Format (Strict JSON): {{ "question": "{current_question_escaped}", "answer": "string - Your answer to the specific question based on the video."...

  55. [64]

    Carefully read the Question, Ground Truth Answer, and the Predicted Answer

  56. [65]

    Compare the Predicted Answer directly against the Ground Truth Answer

  57. [66]

    Minor phrasing differences are acceptable if the core meaning is identical

    Focus on factual correctness and semantic equivalence. Minor phrasing differences are acceptable if the core meaning is identical

  58. [67]

    The predicted answer is factually correct and semantically identical or a trivial rephrasing of the ground truth

    Score the Predicted Answer on an integer scale from 0 to 5: • 5: Perfect Match. The predicted answer is factually correct and semantically identical or a trivial rephrasing of the ground truth. • 4: Mostly Correct. The predicted answer is factually correct but might miss a min...

  59. [68]

    I cannot determine

    IMPORTANT:Consider uncertain predictions (e.g., "I cannot determine", "It is impossible to answer") as incorrect (Score 0), unless the Ground Truth Answer also explicitly states uncertainty or inability to answer

  60. [69]

    Provide a brief Reason explaining your score, highlighting agreements or discrepancies between the prediction and the ground truth

  61. [70]

    video_id

    Determine the overall Judgement as ’correct’ (typically scores 3, 4, or 5) or ’incorrect’ (typically score 0-2). Use ’correct’ only if the prediction fully captures the essential information of the ground truth. INPUT: • Question: {question} • Ground Truth Answer: {ground_trut...

  62. [2024]

    Accessed: 2025-04-10. 1

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.