MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LS-HAR: Language Supervised Human Action Recognition with Salient Fusion, Construction Sites as a Use-Case

2025· article· W4416749964 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Mahdavian, Mohammad Loni, Ted Samuelsson, Mo Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalientRobustness (evolution)Fusion mechanismProcess (computing)Feature extractionModalitiesTask (project management)TransformerAction recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting human actions is a crucial task for autonomous robots and vehicles, often requiring the integration of various data modalities for improved accuracy. In this study, we introduce a novel approach to Human Action Recognition (HAR) using language supervision named LS-HAR based on skeleton and visual cues. Our method leverages a language model to guide the feature extraction process in the skeleton encoder. Specifically, we employ learnable prompts for the language model conditioned on the skeleton modality to optimize feature representation. Furthermore, we propose a fusion mechanism that combines dual-modality features using a salient fusion module, incorporating attention and transformer mechanisms to address the modalities’ high dimensionality. This fusion process prioritizes informative video frames and body joints, enhancing the recognition accuracy of human actions. Additionally, we introduce a new dataset tailored for real-world robotic applications in construction sites, featuring visual, skeleton, and depth data modalities, named VolvoConstAct. This dataset serves to facilitate the training and evaluation of machine learning models to instruct autonomous construction machines for performing necessary tasks in real-world construction sites. To evaluate our approach, we conduct experiments on our dataset as well as three widely used public datasets: NTU-RGB+D, NTU-RGB+D 120, and NW-UCLA. Results reveal that our proposed method achieves promising performance across all datasets, demonstrating its robustness and potential for various applications. The code, dataset, and demonstration of real-machine experiments are available at: https://mmahdavian.github.io/ls_har/

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207