MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055416128 · doi:10.1145/2330163.2330297

Co-evolutionary predictors for kinematic pose inference from RGBD images

2012· article· en· W2055416128 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel Ly, Ashutosh Saxena, Hod Lipson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber SystemsNational Institute on Drug AbuseNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsKinematicsInferencePoseArtificial intelligence3D pose estimationComputer scienceArticulated body pose estimationEvolutionary algorithmComputer visionPoint cloudMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Markerless pose inference of arbitrary subjects is a primary problem for a variety of applications, including robot vision and teaching by demonstration. Unsupervised kinematic pose inference is an ideal method for these applications as it provides a robust, training-free approach with minimal reliance on prior information. However, these methods have been considered intractable for complex models. This paper presents a general framework for inferring poses from a single depth image given an arbitrary kinematic structure without prior training. A co-evolutionary algorithm, consisting of pose and predictor populations, is applied to overcome the traditional limitations in kinematic pose inference. Evaluated on test sets of 256 synthetic and 52 real images, our algorithm shows consistent pose inference for 34 and 78 degree of freedom models with point clouds containing over 40,000 points, even in cases of significant self-occlusion. Compared to various baselines, the co-evolutionary algorithm provides at least a 3.5-fold increase in pose accuracy and a two-fold reduction in computational effort for articulated models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207