Stitch, Contrast, and Segment: Learning a Human Action Segmentation Model Using Trimmed Skeleton Videos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing skeleton-based human action classification models rely on well-trimmed action-specific skeleton videos for both training and testing, precluding their scalability to real-world applications where untrimmed videos exhibiting concatenated actions are predominant. To overcome this limitation, recently introduced skeleton action segmentation models involve un-trimmed skeleton videos into end-to-end training. The model is optimized to provide frame-wise predictions for any length of testing videos, simultaneously realizing action localization and classification. Yet, achieving such an improvement im-poses frame-wise annotated skeleton videos, which remains time-consuming in practice. This paper features a novel framework for skeleton-based action segmentation trained on short trimmed skeleton videos, but that can run on longer un-trimmed videos. The approach is implemented in three steps: Stitch, Contrast, and Segment. First, Stitch proposes a tem-poral skeleton stitching scheme that treats trimmed skeleton videos as elementary human motions that compose a semantic space and can be sampled to generate multi-action stitched se-quences. Contrast learns contrastive representations from stitched sequences with a novel discrimination pretext task that enables a skeleton encoder to learn meaningful action-temporal contexts to improve action segmentation. Finally, Segment relates the proposed method to action segmentation by learning a segmentation layer while handling particular da-ta availability. Experiments involve a trimmed source dataset and an untrimmed target dataset in an adaptation formulation for real-world skeleton-based human action segmentation to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".