Deep Reinforcement Learning in Human Activity Recognition: A Survey and Outlook
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
Human activity recognition (HAR) is a popular research field in computer vision that has already been widely studied. However, it is still an active research field since it plays an important role in many current and emerging real-world intelligent systems, like visual surveillance and human-computer interaction. Deep reinforcement learning (DRL) has recently been used to address the activity recognition problem with various purposes, such as finding attention in video data or obtaining the best network structure. DRL-based HAR has only been around for a short time, and it is a challenging, novel field of study. Therefore, to facilitate further research in this area, we have constructed a comprehensive survey on activity recognition methods that incorporate DRL. Throughout the article, we classify these methods according to their shared objectives and delve into how they are ingeniously framed within the DRL framework. As we navigate through the survey, we conclude by shedding light on the prominent challenges and lingering questions that await the attention of future researchers, paving the way for further advancements and breakthroughs in this exciting domain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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