A Deeper Dive Into What Deep Spatiotemporal Networks Encode: Quantifying Static vs. Dynamic Information
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
Deep spatiotemporal models are used in a variety of computer vision tasks, such as action recognition and video object segmentation. Currently, there is a limited understanding of what information is captured by these models in their intermediate representations. For example, while it has been observed that action recognition algorithms are heavily influenced by visual appearance in single static frames, there is no quantitative methodology for evaluating such static bias in the latent representation compared to bias toward dynamic information (e.g. motion). We tackle this challenge by proposing a novel approach for quantifying the static and dynamic biases of any spatiotemporal model. To show the efficacy of our approach, we analyse two widely studied tasks, action recognition and video object segmentation. Our key findings are threefold: (i) Most examined spatiotemporal models are biased toward static information; although, certain two-stream architectures with cross-connections show a better balance between the static and dynamic information captured. (ii) Some datasets that are commonly assumed to be biased toward dynamics are actually biased toward static information. (iii) Individual units (channels) in an architecture can be biased toward static, dynamic or a combination of the two. <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> Project page and code
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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