MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403791396 · doi:10.1145/3664647.3688975

Advancing Micro-Action Recognition with Multi-Auxiliary Heads and Hybrid Loss Optimization

2024· article· en· W4403791396 on OpenAlexaff
Qiankun Li, Xiaolong Huang, Huabao Chen, Feng He, Qiupu Chen, Zengfu Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAction (physics)Action recognitionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Video action recognition has been a hot research direction in computer vision, with most existing technologies focusing on coarse-grained macro-action recognition. However, fine-grained action recognition remains challenging. Micro-actions, characterized by high fine-grained, low-intensity, and brief, are crucial for emotion recognition and psychological assessment applications. In this paper, we build on popular video action recognition frameworks as foundation models, introducing multi-auxiliary heads and hybrid loss optimization to advance micro-action recognition. Specifically, the Frame-Level pred and Coarse-Grained Body-Action auxiliary heads work collaboratively to enhance the model and Fine-Grained Micro-Action primary head for perceiving fine-grained and capturing keyframes. Incorporating F1 loss, ArcFace loss, and weighted multi-task loss improves training stability, convergence speed, and performance. Additionally, integrating the optical flow modality enriches the model's diversity, and ensemble learning across all foundational models. Finally, our method achieves a 75.37% F1-mean on the MA-52 dataset, ranking 1st in the Micro-Action Analysis Grand Challenge in conjunction with ACM MM'24. The code is available at https://github.com/qklee-lz/ACMMM2024-MAC.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207