MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382466151 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i1.25194

Frequency Selective Augmentation for Video Representation Learning

2023· article· en· W4382466151 on OpenAlexaff
Jinhyung Kim, Taeoh Kim, Minho Shim, Dongyoon Han, Dongyoon Wee, Junmo Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
KeywordsComputer scienceGeneralityRepresentation (politics)Feature learningFocus (optics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent self-supervised video representation learning methods focus on maximizing the similarity between multiple augmented views from the same video and largely rely on the quality of generated views. However, most existing methods lack a mechanism to prevent representation learning from bias towards static information in the video. In this paper, we propose frequency augmentation (FreqAug), a spatio-temporal data augmentation method in the frequency domain for video representation learning. FreqAug stochastically removes specific frequency components from the video so that learned representation captures essential features more from the remaining information for various downstream tasks. Specifically, FreqAug pushes the model to focus more on dynamic features rather than static features in the video via dropping spatial or temporal low-frequency components. To verify the generality of the proposed method, we experiment with FreqAug on multiple self-supervised learning frameworks along with standard augmentations. Transferring the improved representation to five video action recognition and two temporal action localization downstream tasks shows consistent improvements over baselines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207