Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gait recognition is an appealing biometric modality which aims to identify individuals based on the way they walk. Deep learning has reshaped the research landscape in this area since 2015 through the ability to automatically learn discriminative representations. Gait recognition methods based on deep learning now dominate the state-of-the-art in the field and have fostered real-world applications. In this paper, we present a comprehensive overview of breakthroughs and recent developments in gait recognition with deep learning, and cover broad topics including datasets, test protocols, state-of-the-art solutions, challenges, and future research directions. We first review the commonly used gait datasets along with the principles designed for evaluating them. We then propose a novel taxonomy made up of four separate dimensions namely body representation, temporal representation, feature representation, and neural architecture, to help characterize and organize the research landscape and literature in this area. Following our proposed taxonomy, a comprehensive survey of gait recognition methods using deep learning is presented with discussions on their performances, characteristics, advantages, and limitations. We conclude this survey with a discussion on current challenges and mention a number of promising directions for future research in gait recognition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".