FenceNet: Fine-grained Footwork Recognition in Fencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current data analysis for the Canadian Olympic fencing team is primarily done manually by coaches and analysts. Due to the highly repetitive, yet dynamic and subtle movements in fencing, manual data analysis can be inefficient and inaccurate. We propose FenceNet as a novel architecture to automate the classification of fine-grained footwork techniques in fencing. FenceNet takes 2D pose data as input and classifies actions using a skeleton-based action recognition approach that incorporates temporal convolutional networks to capture temporal information. We train and evaluate FenceNet on the Fencing Footwork Dataset (FFD), which contains 10 fencers performing 6 different footwork actions for 10-11 repetitions each (652 total videos). FenceNet achieves 85.4% accuracy under 10-fold cross-validation, where each fencer is left out as the test set. This accuracy is within 1% of the current state-of-the-art method, JLJA (86.3%), which selects and fuses features engineered from skeleton data, depth videos, and inertial measurement units. BiFenceNet, a variant of FenceNet that captures the "bidirectionality" of human movement through two separate networks, achieves 87.6% accuracy, outperforming JLJA. Since neither FenceNet nor BiFenceNet requires data from wearable sensors, unlike JLJA, they could be directly applied to most fencing videos, using 2D pose data as input extracted from off-the-shelf 2D human pose estimators. In comparison to JLJA, our methods are also simpler as they do not require manual feature engineering, selection, or fusion.
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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".