MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110787063 · doi:10.1109/smc42975.2020.9283020

Instance-Based Learning for Human Action Recognition

2020· article· en· W3110787063 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Haddad, Vahid Khorasani Ghassab, Fatma Najar, Nizar Bouguila

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDiscriminative modelKullback–Leibler divergenceDivergence (linguistics)Mixture modelPattern recognition (psychology)Optical flowGaussianCluster analysisAction recognitionFeature vectorLeverage (statistics)Vector quantizationMachine learningGesture recognitionGestureImage (mathematics)Class (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Along with the exponential growth of online video creation platforms such as Tik Tok and Instagram, state of the art research involving quick and effective action/gesture recognition applications remains crucial. This work addresses the challenge of classifying such short video clips, using a domain-specific feature design approach, capable of performing significantly well using little training data. The method is based on Gunner Farneback dense optical flow (GF-OF) estimation strategy, Gaussian mixture models, and information divergence. We first aim to obtain accurate 3D representations of the human movements/actions through clustering the results given by GF-OF using K-means method of vector quantization. We then proceed by representing the result of one instance of each action by a Gaussian mixture model. Furthermore, using Kullback-Leibler divergence (KL-divergence), we attempt to find similarities between the trained actions and the ones in the test videos. Classification is done by matching each testing video to the trained action with the highest similarity (lowest KL-divergence). We have performed experiments on the KTH and Weizmann Human Action datasets, and the results reveal the discriminative nature of our proposed methodology in comparison with other state of the art techniques.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207