Supervised and Self-Supervised Learning for Assembly Line Action Recognition
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
The safety and efficiency of assembly lines are critical to manufacturing, but human supervisors cannot oversee all activities simultaneously. This study addresses this challenge by performing a comparative study to construct an initial real-time, semi-supervised temporal action recognition setup for monitoring worker actions on assembly lines. Various feature extractors and localization models were benchmarked using a new assembly dataset, with the I3D model achieving an average mAP@IoU=0.1:0.7 of 85% without optical flow or fine-tuning. The comparative study was extended to self-supervised learning via a modified SPOT model, which achieved a mAP@IoU=0.1:0.7 of 65% with just 10% of the data labeled using extractor architectures from the fully-supervised portion. Milestones include high scores for both fully and semi-supervised learning on this dataset and improved SPOT performance on ANet1.3. This study identified the particularities of the problem, which were leveraged and referenced to explain the results observed in semi-supervised scenarios. The findings highlight the potential for developing a scalable solution in the future, providing labour efficiency and safety compliance for manufacturers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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