Efficient Action Recognition Using Confidence Distillation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern neural networks are powerful predictive models. However, when it comes to recognizing that they may be wrong about their predictions, they perform poorly. For example, for one of the most common activation functions, the ReLU and its variants, even a well-calibrated model can produce incorrect but high confidence predictions. Most current action recognition methods are based on clip-level classifiers that densely sample a given video for non-overlapping, same-sized clips and aggregate the results using an aggregation function - typically averaging - to achieve video level predictions. While this approach has shown to be effective, it is sub-optimal in recognition accuracy and has a high computational overhead. To mitigate both these issues, we propose the confidence distillation framework to teach a student model how to select less ambiguous clips for the teacher, and divide the task of prediction between the two. We conduct extensive experiments on three action recognition datasets and demonstrate that our framework achieves significant improvements in action recognition accuracy (up to 20%) and computational efficiency (more than 40%).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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 it