Convolutional Neural Networks or Vision Transformers: Who Will Win the Race for Action Recognitions in Visual Data?
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
Understanding actions in videos remains a significant challenge in computer vision, which has been the subject of several pieces of research in the last decades. Convolutional neural networks (CNN) are a significant component of this topic and play a crucial role in the renown of Deep Learning. Inspired by the human vision system, CNN has been applied to visual data exploitation and has solved various challenges in various computer vision tasks and video/image analysis, including action recognition (AR). However, not long ago, along with the achievement of the transformer in natural language processing (NLP), it began to set new trends in vision tasks, which has created a discussion around whether the Vision Transformer models (ViT) will replace CNN in action recognition in video clips. This paper conducts this trending topic in detail, the study of CNN and Transformer for Action Recognition separately and a comparative study of the accuracy-complexity trade-off. Finally, based on the performance analysis's outcome, the question of whether CNN or Vision Transformers will win the race will be discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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