MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390205415 · doi:10.3390/ecsa-10-16257

Multi-Modal Human Action Segmentation Using Skeletal Video Ensembles

2023· article· en· W4390205415 on OpenAlexafffund
J. W. Dickens, Pierre Payeur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationConvolutional neural networkAction recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)RGB color modelTimestampMachine learningComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beyond traditional surveillance applications, sensor-based human action recognition and segmentation responds to a growing demand in the health and safety sector. Recently, skeletal action recognition has largely been dominated by spatio-temporal graph convolutional neural networks (ST-GCN), while video-based action segmentation research successfully employs 3D convolutional neural networks (3D-CNNs), as well as vision transformers. In this paper, we argue that these two inputs are complementary, and we develop an approach that achieves superior performance with a multi-modal ensemble. A multi-task GCN is developed that can predict both frame-wise actions as well as action timestamps, allowing for the use of fine-tuned video classification models to classify action segments and achieve refined predictions. Symmetrically, a multi-task video approach is presented that uses a video action segmentation model to predict framewise labels and timestamps, augmented with a skeletal action classification model. Finally, an ensemble of segmentation methods for each modality (skeletal, RGB, depth, and infrared) is formulated. Experimental results yield 87% accuracy on the PKU-MMD v2 dataset, delivering state-of-the-art performance.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207