Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatiotemporal representations learned using 3D convolutional neural networks (CNN) are currently used in state-of-the-art approaches for action-related tasks. However, 3D-CNN are notorious for being memory and compute resource intensive as compared with more simple 2D-CNN architectures. We propose to hallucinate spatiotemporal representations from a 3D-CNN teacher with a 2D-CNN student. By requiring the 2D-CNN to predict the future and intuit upcoming activity, it is encouraged to gain a deeper understanding of actions and how they evolve. The hallucination task is treated as an auxiliary task, which can be used with any other action-related task in a multitask learning setting. Thorough experimental evaluation, it is shown that the hallucination task indeed helps improve performance on action recognition, action quality assessment, and dynamic scene recognition tasks. From a practical standpoint, being able to hallucinate spatiotemporal representations without an actual 3D-CNN can enable deployment in resource-constrained scenarios, such as with limited computing power and/or lower bandwidth. We also observed that our hallucination task has utility not only during the training phase, but also during the pre-training phase.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".