Quantifying and Learning Static vs. Dynamic Information in Deep Spatiotemporal Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited understanding of the information captured by deep spatiotemporal models in their intermediate representations. For example, while evidence suggests that action recognition algorithms are heavily influenced by visual appearance in single frames, no quantitative methodology exists for evaluating such static bias in the latent representation compared to bias toward dynamics. We tackle this challenge by proposing an approach for quantifying the static and dynamic biases of any spatiotemporal model, and apply our approach to three tasks, action recognition, automatic video object segmentation (AVOS) and video instance segmentation (VIS). Our key findings are: (i) Most examined models are biased toward static information. (ii) Some datasets that are assumed to be biased toward dynamics are actually biased toward static information. (iii) Individual channels in an architecture can be biased toward static, dynamic or jointly encode a combination static and dynamic information. (iv) Most models converge to their culminating biases in the first half of training. We then explore how these biases affect performance on dynamically biased datasets. For action recognition, we propose StaticDropout, a semantically guided dropout that debiases a model from static information toward dynamics. For AVOS, we design a better combination of fusion and cross connection layers compared with previous architectures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".