SLIC: Self-Supervised Learning with Iterative Clustering for Human Action Videos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-supervised methods have significantly closed the gap with end-to-end supervised learning for image classification [13], [24]. In the case of human action videos, however, where both appearance and motion are significant factors of variation, this gap remains significant [28], [58]. One of the key reasons for this is that sampling pairs of similar video clips, a required step for many self-supervised contrastive learning methods, is currently done conservatively to avoid false positives. A typical assumption is that similar clips only occur temporally close within a single video, leading to insufficient examples of motion similarity. To mitigate this, we propose SLIC, a clustering-based self-supervised contrastive learning method for human action videos. Our key contribution is that we improve upon the traditional intra-video positive sampling by using iterative clustering to group similar video instances. This enables our method to leverage pseudo-labels from the cluster assignments to sample harder positives and negatives. SLIC outperforms state-of-the-art video retrieval baselines by$+15.4\%$on top-1 recall on UCF101 and by$+5.7\%$when directly transferred to HMDB51. With end-to-end finetuning for action classi-fication, SLIC achieves 83.2% top-1 accuracy$(+0.8\%)$on UCF101 and 54.5% on HMDB51$(+1.6\%$,. SLIC is also competitive with the state-of-the-art in action classification after self-supervised pretraining on Kinetics400.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".