MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158638750 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2005.132

Discriminative Density Propagation for 3D Human Motion Estimation

2005· article· en· W2158638750 on OpenAlexaff
Cristian Sminchisescu, Atul Kanaujia, Zhiguo Li, D. Metaxas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminative modelArtificial intelligenceInferenceComputer scienceGenerative modelMotion capturePattern recognition (psychology)Probabilistic logicBayesian inferenceConditional probability distributionBelief propagationMachine learningComputer visionBayesian probabilityGenerative grammarMotion (physics)MathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a mixture density propagation algorithm to estimate 3D human motion in monocular video sequences based on observations encoding the appearance of image silhouettes. Our approach is discriminative rather than generative, therefore it does not require the probabilistic inversion of a predictive observation model. Instead, it uses a large human motion capture data-base and a 3D computer graphics human model in order to synthesize training pairs of typical human configurations together with their realistically rendered 2D silhouettes. These are used to directly learn to predict the conditional state distributions required for 3D body pose tracking and thus avoid using the generative 3D model for inference (the learned discriminative predictors can also be used, complementary, as importance samplers in order to improve mixing or initialize generative inference algorithms). We aim for probabilistically motivated tracking algorithms and for models that can represent complex multivalued mappings common in inverse, uncertain perception inferences. Our paper has three contributions: (1) we establish the density propagation rules for discriminative inference in continuous, temporal chain models; (2) we propose flexible algorithms for learning multimodal state distributions based on compact, conditional Bayesian mixture of experts models; and (3) we demonstrate the algorithms empirically on real and motion capture-based test sequences and compare against nearest-neighbor and regression methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations219
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207