A Simple Method to Boost Human Pose Estimation Accuracy by Correcting the Joint Regressor for the Human3.6m Dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many human pose estimation methods estimate Skinned Multi-Person Linear (SMPL) models and regress the human joints from these SMPL estimates. In this work, we show that the most widely used SMPL-to-joint linear layer (joint regressor) is inaccurate, which may mislead pose evaluation results. To achieve a more accurate joint regressor, we propose a method to create pseudo-ground-truth SMPL poses, which can then be used to train an improved regressor. Specifically, we optimize SMPL estimates coming from a state-of-the-art method so that its projection matches the silhouettes of humans in the scene, as well as the ground-truth 2D joint locations. While the quality of this pseudo-ground-truth is chal-lenging to assess due to the lack of actual ground-truth SMPL, with the Human 3.6m dataset, we qualitatively show that our joint locations are more accurate and that our regressor leads to improved pose estimations results on the test set without any need for retraining. We release our code and joint regressor at https://github.com/ubc-vision/joint-regressor-refinement
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.025 |
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".