MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047499569 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2011.228

Discriminative Latent Models for Recognizing Contextual Group Activities

2011· article· en· W2047499569 on OpenAlexafffund
Tian Lan, Yang Wang, Weilong Yang, Stephen N. Robinovitch, Gajendrasinh Natvarsinh Mori

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDiscriminative modelComputer scienceInferenceLatent variableArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Representation (politics)Action (physics)Focus (optics)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we go beyond recognizing the actions of individuals and focus on group activities. This is motivated from the observation that human actions are rarely performed in isolation; the contextual information of what other people in the scene are doing provides a useful cue for understanding high-level activities. We propose a novel framework for recognizing group activities which jointly captures the group activity, the individual person actions, and the interactions among them. Two types of contextual information, group-person interaction and person-person interaction, are explored in a latent variable framework. In particular, we propose three different approaches to model the person-person interaction. One approach is to explore the structures of person-person interaction. Differently from most of the previous latent structured models, which assume a predefined structure for the hidden layer, e.g., a tree structure, we treat the structure of the hidden layer as a latent variable and implicitly infer it during learning and inference. The second approach explores person-person interaction in the feature level. We introduce a new feature representation called the action context (AC) descriptor. The AC descriptor encodes information about not only the action of an individual person in the video, but also the behavior of other people nearby. The third approach combines the above two. Our experimental results demonstrate the benefit of using contextual information for disambiguating group activities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations312
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207