Keep it accurate and diverse: Enhancing action recognition performance by ensemble learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of different action recognition techniques has recently been studied by several computer vision researchers. However, the potential improvement in classification through classifier fusion by ensemble-based methods has remained unattended. In this work, we evaluate the performance of an ensemble of action learning techniques, each performing the recognition task from a different perspective. The underlying idea is that instead of aiming a very sophisticated and powerful representation/learning technique, we can learn action categories using a set of relatively simple and diverse classifiers, each trained with different feature set. In addition, combining the outputs of several learners can reduce the risk of an unfortunate selection of a learner on an unseen action recognition scenario. This leads to having a more robust and general-applicable framework. In order to improve the recognition performance, a powerful combination strategy is utilized based on the Dempster-Shafer theory, which can effectively make use of diversity of base learners trained on different sources of information. The recognition results of the individual classifiers are compared with those obtained from fusing the classifiers' output, showing enhanced performance of the proposed methodology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".