MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010475513 · doi:10.1162/neco.2007.19.5.1400

3D Periodic Human Motion Reconstruction from 2D Motion Sequences

2007· article· en· W2010475513 on OpenAlexaff
Zonghua Zhang, Nikolaus F. Troje

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Computation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion (physics)Structure from motionMotion fieldArtificial intelligenceMathematicsFourier transformMaximum a posteriori estimationAlgorithmA priori and a posterioriMotion estimationComputer visionMotion captureData setComputer scienceMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present and evaluate a method of reconstructing three-dimensional (3D) periodic human motion from two-dimensional (2D) motion sequences. Using Fourier decomposition, we construct a compact representation for periodic human motion. A low-dimensional linear motion model is learned from a training set of 3D Fourier representations by means of principal components analysis. Two-dimensional test data are projected onto this model with two approaches: least-square minimization and calculation of a maximum a posteriori probability using the Bayes' rule. We present two different experiments in which both approaches are applied to 2D data obtained from 3D walking sequences projected onto a plane. In the first experiment, we assume the viewpoint is known. In the second experiment, the horizontal viewpoint is unknown and is recovered from the 2D motion data. The results demonstrate that by using the linear model, not only can missing motion data be reconstructed, but unknown view angles for 2D test data can also be retrieved.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural ComputationSame topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207