MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181300449 · doi:10.1109/mmsp.2015.7340806

Spatio-Temporal Pyramid Model based on depth maps for action recognition

2015· article· en· W2181300449 on OpenAlexaff
Haining Xu, Enqing Chen, Chengwu Liang, Lin Qi, Ling Guan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPyramid (geometry)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceDepth mapSequence (biology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionProjection (relational algebra)Frame (networking)HistogramRepresentation (politics)Histogram of oriented gradientsImage (mathematics)MathematicsAlgorithmGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel human action recognition method by using depth maps. Each depth frame in a depth video sequence is projected onto three orthogonal Cartesian planes. Under each projection view, we divide the entire depth maps into several sub-actions. The absolute difference between two consecutive projected maps is accumulated through a depth video (several sub-actions) sequence to form a Depth Motion Map (DMM) to describe the dynamic feature of an action. Also the difference within the threshold between two consecutive projected maps is calculated through the entire depth video to form another kind of Depth Static Map (DSM) to describe the static feature. Collectively, we call them Temporal Pyramid of Depth Model (TPDM). Then Spatial Pyramid Histograms of Oriented Gradient (SPHOG) is computed from the TPDM for the representation of an action. For classification, we apply support vector machine (SVM) to classify the proposed descriptorsbased on MSR Action3D dataset. Experimental results demonstrates the effectiveness of our proposed method.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207