MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130713698 · doi:10.1109/crv.2012.32

A Multi-Scale Hierarchical Codebook Method for Human Action Recognition in Videos Using a Single Example

2012· article· en· W2130713698 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrsan Javan, Martin D. Levine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCodebookComputer scienceAction recognitionScale (ratio)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Action (physics)Speech recognitionComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel action matching method based on a hierarchical codebook of local spatio-temporal video volumes (STVs). Given a single example of an activity as a query video, the proposed method finds similar videos to the query in a video dataset. It is based on the bag of video words (BOV) representation and does not require prior knowledge about actions, background subtraction, motion estimation or tracking. It is also robust to spatial and temporal scale changes, as well as some deformations. The hierarchical algorithm yields a compact subset of salient code words of STVs for the query video, and then the likelihood of similarity between the query video and all STVs in the target video is measured using a probabilistic inference mechanism. This hierarchy is achieved by initially constructing a codebook of STVs, while considering the uncertainty in the codebook construction, which is always ignored in current versions of the BOV approach. At the second level of the hierarchy, a large contextual region containing many STVs (Ensemble of STVs) is considered in order to construct a probabilistic model of STVs and their spatio-temporal compositions. At the third level of the hierarchy a codebook is formed for the ensembles of STVs based on their contextual similarities. The latter are the proposed labels (code words) for the actions being exhibited in the video. Finally, at the highest level of the hierarchy, the salient labels for the actions are selected by analyzing the high level code words assigned to each image pixel as a function of time. The algorithm was applied to three available video datasets for action recognition with different complexities (KTH, Weizmann, and MSR II) and the results were superior to other approaches, especially in the cases of a single training example and cross-dataset action recognition.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.111 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207