Supervised and Self-Supervised Learning for Assembly Line Action Recognition
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".