Latent Regression Forest: Structured Estimation of 3D Hand Poses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we present the latent regression forest (LRF), a novel framework for real-time, 3D hand pose estimation from a single depth image. Prior discriminative methods often fall into two categories: holistic and patch-based. Holistic methods are efficient but less flexible due to their nearest neighbour nature. Patch-based methods can generalise to unseen samples by consider local appearance only. However, they are complex because each pixel need to be classified or regressed during testing. In contrast to these two baselines, our method can be considered as a structured coarse-to-fine search, starting from the centre of mass of a point cloud until locating all the skeletal joints. The searching process is guided by a learnt latent tree model which reflects the hierarchical topology of the hand. Our main contributions can be summarised as follows: (i) Learning the topology of the hand in an unsupervised, data-driven manner. (ii) A new forest-based, discriminative framework for structured search in images, as well as an error regression step to avoid error accumulation. (iii) A new multi-view hand pose dataset containing 180 K annotated images from 10 different subjects. Our experiments on two datasets show that the LRF outperforms baselines and prior arts in both accuracy and efficiency.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it