Glimpse Clouds: Human Activity Recognition from Unstructured Feature Points
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a method for human activity recognition from RGB data that does not rely on any pose information during test time, and does not explicitly calculate pose information internally. Instead, a visual attention module learns to predict glimpse sequences in each frame. These glimpses correspond to interest points in the scene that are relevant to the classified activities. No spatial coherence is forced on the glimpse locations, which gives the attention module liberty to explore different points at each frame and better optimize the process of scrutinizing visual information. Tracking and sequentially integrating this kind of unstructured data is a challenge, which we address by separating the set of glimpses from a set of recurrent tracking/recognition workers. These workers receive glimpses, jointly performing subsequent motion tracking and activity prediction. The glimpses are soft-assigned to the workers, optimizing coherence of the assignments in space, time and feature space using an external memory module. No hard decisions are taken, i.e. each glimpse point is assigned to all existing workers, albeit with different importance. Our methods outperform the state-of-the-art on the largest human activity recognition dataset available to-date, NTU RGB+D, and on the Northwestern-UCLA Multiview Action 3D Dataset.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".