MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400041311 · doi:10.18280/ts.410334

Enhanced Depth Motion Maps for Improved Human Action Recognition from Depth Action Sequences

2024· article· en· W4400041311 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dustakar Surendra Rao, L. Koteswara Rao, Vipparthi Bhagyaraju, Goh Kam Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Action recognitionMotion (physics)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionHuman motionGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human action recognition based on depth action sequences is a well-known study that can be used in many fields.Compared to RGB Videos, depth action videos are more robust as they are not affected by changes in lighting.This study proposes the Enhanced Depth Motion Map (EDMM), a new action descriptor to overcome the challenges of the conventional DMM, which cannot handle the presence of some undefined regions in depth maps.Contrary to DMM's global motion description, the EDMM meticulously scans individual pixels and then accurately identifies those in motion.We extracted the EDMM from a series of video sequences and then used a convolutional neural network (CNN) model to simplify the motions accurately.The CNN model, equipped with nine layers, accurately recognizes activities based on maximum movement similarity.The method underwent testing using two standard and publicly available datasets; MSR Action 3D and UTD-MHAD.The test results through True Positive Rate (TPR), Positive Predictive Value (PPV) or Precision, False Discovery Rate (FDR), False Negative Rate (FNR), F1-score, and accuracy demonstrated the superiority of the proposed method over numerous state-of-the-art methods like DMM, DMM with Local Binary Pattern and DMM with Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOGs).

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

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 communication0.0010.002
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207