Improved Actor Relation Graph based Group Activity Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video understanding is to recognize and classify different actions or activities appearing in the video. A lot of previous work, such as video captioning, has shown promising performance in producing general video understanding. However, it is still challenging to generate a fine-grained description of human actions and their interactions using state-of-the-art video captioning techniques. The detailed description of human actions and group activities is essential information, which can be used in real-time CCTV video surveillance, health care, sports video analysis, etc. This study proposes a video understanding method that mainly focused on group activity recognition by learning the pair-wise actor appearance similarity and actor positions. We propose to use Normalized cross-correlation (NCC) and the sum of absolute differences (SAD) to calculate the pair-wise appearance similarity and build the actor relationship graph to allow the graph convolution network to learn how to classify group activities. We also propose to use MobileNet as the backbone to extract features from each video frame. A visualization model is further introduced to visualize each input video frame with predicted bounding boxes on each human object and predict individual action and collective activity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".