MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399369449 · doi:10.21428/d82e957c.fee4d2e2

Cross-Graph Domain Adaptation for Skeleton-based Human Action Recognition

2024· article· en· W4399369449 on OpenAlexaff
Haitao Tian, J. W. Dickens, Pierre Payeur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkeleton (computer programming)Action recognitionHuman skeletonComputer scienceDomain adaptationAdaptation (eye)GraphArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer sciencePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research on human action recognition is largely facilitated by skeletal data, a compact graph representation composed of key joints of the human skeleton that is efficiently extracted by body tracking systems and that offers the merit of being robust to environmental variations. However, the skeleton resolution and joint connectivity of the extracted skeletons may vary with sensor devices, which results in different skeleton graph representations on collected data. This paper investigates a cross skeleton graph domain adaptation approach where a skeleton action recognition model is trained upon a source skeletal data domain but is expected to adapt onto a target domain configured with a different skeleton graph. It proposes an adversarial learning framework where a generation space is developed on which the model learns valid skeletal action knowledge from the source graph domain.Interaction with an embedded discrimination space is employed to extract heterogenous graph features from the target domain. Optimization of the generation space and the discrimination space is realized alternatively under adversarial learning which guarantees action-aware and domain-agnostic skeletal knowledge, thus forming a joint human action recognition model effectively functioning on both graph domains. In experiments, the paper evaluates the proposed method by incorporating graph convolutional networks into two skeleton action recognition benchmarks, NTU-RGB+D and Northwestern-UCLA, where comparisons are conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Code will be available at https://github.com/tht106/CrossGraphDA <https://github.com/tht106/CrossGraphDA> .

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207