MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117479573 · doi:10.1145/3714394.3756203

Foundation Models to Tackle Activity Recognition in Unknown Domain: Sussex-Huawei Locomotion Challenge 2025 Task 2

2025· article· W7117479573 on OpenAlexaff
Tsuyoshi Okita, Kosuke Ukita, A. Miyazaki, D. Kubota, Jukichi Ota, Naoki Kagiyama, Asahi Nishikawa, Daichi Nagayasu, Syunya Tomitaka, Daisuke Nozaki, Yuki Odo, Raku Yamashita, Xiaolong Ye, Huayu Gao, Kazuki Okahashi, Koki Matsuishi, Masaharu Kagiyama, Kodai Hirata, Haruki Kai, L Wang, Hristijan Gjoreski, Mathias Ciliberto, Paula Lago, Kazuya Murao, Daniel Roggen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Task (project management)Set (abstract data type)Ranking (information retrieval)Moment (physics)Activity recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This summary paper provides an overview of Task 2 from the Sussex-Huawei Locomotion Challenge. In this task, the specific category of human activity recognition was intentionally undisclosed to participants. Under these conditions, teams were expected to develop classifiers—potentially utilizing foundation models—trained on publicly available datasets, with the objective of generalizing to an unseen test set provided by the organizers. The ranking criterion was the F1 score. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the methodologies employed by participants. Additionally, it reports on further experiments conducted by the organizers using the foundation models MOMENT and Chronos.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207