Yoga Pose Estimation Using Angle-Based Feature Extraction
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
OBJECTIVE: This research addresses the challenges of maintaining proper yoga postures, an issue that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent shift to virtual platforms for yoga instruction. This research aims to develop a mechanism for detecting correct yoga poses and providing real-time feedback through the application of computer vision and machine learning (ML) techniques. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: This study utilized computer vision-based pose estimation methods to extract features and calculate yoga pose angles. A variety of models, including extremely randomized trees, logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting, extreme gradient boosting, and deep neural networks, were trained and tested to classify yoga poses. Our study employed the Yoga-82 dataset, consisting of many yoga pose images downloaded from the web. RESULTS: The results of this study show that the extremely randomized trees model outperformed the other models, achieving the highest prediction accuracy of 91% on the test dataset and 92% in a fivefold cross-validation experiment. Other models like random forest, gradient boosting, extreme gradient boosting, and deep neural networks achieved accuracies of 90%, 89%, 90%, and 85%, respectively, while logistic regression underperformed, having the lowest accuracy. CONCLUSION: This research concludes that the extremely randomized trees model presents superior predictive power for yoga pose recognition. This suggests a valuable avenue for future exploration in this domain. Moreover, the approach has significant potential for implementation on low-powered smartphones with minimal latency, thereby enabling real-time feedback for users practicing yoga at home.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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