MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251260102 · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2009.5206709

Max-margin hidden conditional random fields for human action recognition

2009· article· en· W4251260102 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConditional random fieldDiscriminative modelComputer scienceMargin (machine learning)Artificial intelligenceAction recognitionLatent variableCutting-plane methodMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new method for classification with structured latent variables. Our model is formulated using the max-margin formalism in the discriminative learning literature. We propose an efficient learning algorithm based on the cutting plane method and decomposed dual optimization. We apply our model to the problem of recognizing human actions from video sequences, where we model a human action as a global root template and a constellation of several “parts”. We show that our model outperforms another similar method that uses hidden conditional random fields, and is comparable to other state-of-the-art approaches. More importantly, our proposed work is quite general and can potentially be applied in a wide variety of vision problems that involve various complex, interdependent latent structures.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.234 · 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