Spatial Hard Attention Modeling via Deep Reinforcement Learning for Skeleton-Based Human Activity Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning-based algorithms have been very successful in skeleton-based human activity recognition. Skeleton data contains 2-D or 3-D coordinates of human body joints. The main focus of most of the existing skeleton-based activity recognition methods is on designing new deep architectures to learn discriminative features, where all body joints are considered equally important in recognition. However, the importance of joints varies as an activity proceeds within a video and across different activities. In this work, we hypothesize that selecting relevant joints, prior to recognition, can enhance performance of the existing deep learning-based recognition models. We propose a spatial hard attention finding method that aims to remove the uninformative and/or misleading joints at each frame. We formulate the joint selection problem as a Markov decision process and employ deep reinforcement learning to train the proposed spatial-attention-aware agent. No extra labels are needed for the agent’s training. The agent takes a sequence of features extracted from skeleton video as input and outputs a sequence of probabilities for joints. The proposed method can be considered as a general framework that can be integrated with the existing skeleton-based activity recognition methods for performance improvement purposes. We obtain very competitive activity recognition results on three commonly used human activity recognition datasets.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".