Improving Keystep Recognition in Ego-Video via Dexterous Focus

Hyun Soo Park; Stephen J. Guy; Zachary Chavis

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Improving Keystep Recognition in Ego-Video via Dexterous Focus

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A hand-focused crop of ego-video, with no model change, outperforms prior egocentric keystep recognition methods.

desk verdict Hand-focused cropping gives a big jump on Ego-Exo4D keysteps, but the paper never runs the control that would prove hands—not just cropping—are the cause. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00827 v1 pith:AXYCSS6M submitted 2025-06-01 cs.CV

Zachary Chavis , Stephen J. Guy , Hyun Soo Park This is my paper

classification cs.CV

keywords egocentricvideokeysteprecognitionactionhanddetectionpreprocessingTimeSformerEgo-Exo4Ddexterousfocus

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that simply cropping egocentric video to a stabilized region around the camera-wearer's hands, without altering the network architecture, improves fine-grained keystep recognition. On the Ego-Exo4D benchmark, the hand-focused video alone reaches 45.81% top-1 accuracy, a 17% improvement over the same TimeSformer on full frames (39.18%), and fusing both streams reaches 47.75%, beating the published leader of 40.34%. The authors argue that hands anchor the scene and carry task-relevant context that survives the ego-camera's head motion. The result matters because it suggests a cheap preprocessing step can substitute for specialized egocentric encoders.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'dexterous focus' preprocessing pipeline: per-frame hand detection with 100DOH, a focal-point selector that keeps the camera-wearer's hands (filtering small or low-confidence boxes) and falls back to the dataset-average bottom-center location, a smoothing kernel over the resulting trajectory, and a 25% square crop rendered at 224p. This produces a hand-focused video that can be substituted for the original ego-video in any video architecture; the paper uses TimeSformer with a late-fusion dual-stream variant for the combined result.

What would settle it

Run the same hand-crop pipeline on an ego-video keystep dataset where hands are frequently out of frame or on clips with wide-FOV context; if the hand-focused accuracy falls below the full-frame baseline, the claim that hand focus alone is sufficient fails. Alternatively, compare crops generated from true hand trajectories versus the detector-plus-fallback trajectory on Ego-Exo4D: equal accuracy would show the detector is not the load-bearing component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the Ego-Exo4D Fine-Grained Keystep Recognition benchmark, converting each ego-video clip into a stabilized hand-focused video—by detecting hands per frame with 100DOH, taking their centroid, smoothing the trajectory, and cropping a 25% square around it—lets a standard TimeSformer reach 45.81% top-1 accuracy from hands alone and 47.75% when late-fused with the full-frame stream, compared to 39.18% for the same model on full frames and 40.34% for the previous best published method. The improvements come with no change to the model or pretraining, only to the input.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes the per-frame hand detector plus the fixed fallback position yields a trajectory such that the 25% crop keeps the task-relevant context in every clip; if hands are often out of view or detections are noisy, the crop could throw away exactly the information the model needs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hand-focused video alone outperforms full-frame ego-video on keystep recognition, so hands carry enough context for fine-grained procedural steps.
Combining hand-focused and full-frame streams yields a further gain, suggesting the two views are complementary.
The approach transfers across network architectures because it changes only the input, not the model.
The time-warping re-implementation itself lifts the baseline by 12% over the reported TimeSformer, indicating clip-length handling matters independently.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same crop-and-stabilize recipe could be applied to other ego-video tasks such as action anticipation or object interaction recognition, where hand context is also informative.
Because the fallback position is dataset-averaged, the method's gains may concentrate in clips where hands are visible; evaluating per-clip detection success could reveal where the benefit comes from.
Gaze direction or other focus cues could replace hands as the anchor, suggesting a general 'focus-guided' preprocessing family.
The reported gains might partly stem from the time-warping change rather than the crop; ablating dt warping with and without hand crops would isolate the cause.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this one if you work on egocentric action recognition. The result is easy to state: crop the ego video to a stabilized, hand-centered square, feed that to TimeSformer, and top-1 keystep accuracy on Ego-Exo4D goes from 39.18% to 45.81%; fuse with full-frame and it's 47.75%, beating the published 40.34% leader. The idea is genuinely simple and the paper is honest about what it did.

What's new: the specific finding that a preprocessing-only transformation, no model change, gives this jump. Prior work used hands as learned features or alignment signals; using them as a crop target is a direct extension but not something the benchmark leaders did. If the number holds, it's a useful trick for the field.

What's weak: the central attribution is not isolated. The paper never compares a 25% crop at a fixed location (center or bottom-center) under the identical pipeline. A tight crop from any location removes background, upscales objects, and acts as augmentation. The stress-test note is right: the title and contribution rest on hands being the cause, but the control is missing. There's also a protocol confound: their time-warped sampling already lifts the ego baseline from the published 35.13 to 39.18, so the Table 2 comparison mixes a sampling change with the hand-crop change.

Other soft spots: single benchmark, single runs, no error bars, and several preprocessing details unspecified (smoothing kernel, detection thresholds, exact fallback). The best model is picked on validation accuracy, which is standard but inflates the number slightly. The limitations paragraph does note hands may be out of view, which is fair.

None of this is fatal. The empirical claim is concrete and testable; the missing control is easy to add, and releasing code would settle reproducibility. I'd trust the paper's numbers only after that control appears. But the idea deserves referee time—it's the kind of simple preprocessing result that can help a lot of people.

Recommendation: accept for peer review, with the fixed-crop control and code/data release as required conditions. Bring to reading group if you want a debate about what counts as 'dexterous focus' vs. 'cropping in general.'

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a preprocessing framework called Dexterous Focus for egocentric video understanding. It detects the camera-wearer's hands with the 100DOH detector, computes a smoothed per-frame hand trajectory, and crops the original ego video to a 25% square around that trajectory. The resulting hand-focused video is either used alone or late-fused with the full-frame ego video as input to a TimeSformer for keystep recognition on the Ego-Exo4D Fine-Grained Keystep Recognition benchmark. The authors report 45.81% top-1 accuracy with hand-only video and 47.75% with ego+hands late fusion, compared with 39.18% for their ego-only TimeSformer reimplementation and 40.34% for the previously published best result. They claim the improvement requires no modification of the underlying video architecture.

Significance. If the reported gains are actually caused by hand-centered stabilization rather than by cropping or sampling changes, the contribution is significant and broadly useful: it is a simple, architecture-agnostic preprocessing step that could improve many egocentric activity understanding pipelines. The paper is also commendable for targeting a concrete, externally defined benchmark and for reporting a practical late-fusion design. However, the current evidence does not isolate the proposed mechanism, because the key ablation control is missing and the comparison with previously published numbers mixes a time-warping protocol change with the cropping change. With the missing control supplied, the claim would be modest but credible; without it, the central attribution is not established.

major comments (3)

[§4.1 and §4.2.1] The central claim that hand-focused cropping causes the 17% improvement over full ego is not empirically isolated. The paper never evaluates a 25% crop at a fixed location (e.g., image center or bottom-center) resized to 224p under an otherwise identical pipeline. A tight crop alone can increase effective object scale, remove background distractors, and act as a regularizer, so any of these effects could explain much of the gain without the hand trajectory being informative. A center-crop or bottom-center-crop control, and preferably also a control with a randomly jittered fixed crop, is load-bearing for the title and abstract's claim that dexterous focus, not cropping, is the cause.
[§4.1 and §4.2.1] The comparison to previously published benchmark numbers mixes a protocol change with the cropping change. The authors' ego-only TimeSformer reimplementation reaches 39.18% by time-warping the frame sampling, whereas the published TimeSformer ego baseline is 35.13%; the text attributes this 12% relative gain to the time warping. Therefore the claims of 14% and 18% improvement over the best published model in Table 2 do not compare like-for-like protocols. To support the benchmark claim, the authors should report hand-only and ego+hands results with the original sampling, or at least provide an ablation showing that the improvement over the published leader is not primarily due to the sampling change.
[§3 and §4.1] Several details needed for reproducibility and for diagnosing the fallback behavior are missing. The smoothing kernel S, the thresholds used to filter 'small-sized and low-confidence' hand detections, the exact fallback position, and the rationale for the 25% crop size are not specified. In addition, only single-run accuracies are reported and the best model is selected on validation accuracy, so no variance estimate is available. The paper's own Discussion acknowledges that hands may be out of view in some tasks; a sensitivity analysis of the fallback case, e.g., the fraction of clips where the fallback is triggered and the accuracy on those clips, would materially strengthen the paper.

minor comments (5)

[§4.2.1] There are typos in this section: 'imporve' should be 'improve' and 'acess' should be 'access'.
[§4.2] The manuscript uses the number '4.2' for both the main Results subsection and the Benchmark Performance subsection; the latter should be renumbered as a distinct subsection, e.g., 4.2.1.
[Table 2] Reference [22] is cited for the Viewpoint Distillation and VI Encoder baselines, but [22] is the Contrastive Predictive Coding paper, which does not appear to describe an ego-exo view-invariant encoder. The citation should be corrected or replaced with the appropriate source from the Ego-Exo4D benchmark paper.
[Table 1] The '+17%' and '+22%' values in Table 1 are relative improvements in accuracy; the caption should state this explicitly to avoid confusion with absolute percentage-point gains.
[Discussion] The Discussion states that hyperparameters are fixed across all scenarios, which is a reasonable design choice, but a sentence reporting the frequency with which the fallback position is used would help the reader assess the robustness of the pipeline.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: benchmark accuracies are external measurements; hand-crop preprocessing does not encode the prediction target.

full rationale

The paper's pipeline is Vhands = crop(Vego, S(F(D(Vego)))) (Eqs. 1-3), composed of the external 100DOH hand detector, a hand-crafted focal-point selector, a smoothing kernel, and a dataset-average fallback position. The claimed results in Tables 1 and 2 are top-1 accuracies measured on the hold-out validation split of the Ego-Exo4D Fine-Grained Keystep Recognition benchmark, which is an external measurement taken from a published benchmark rather than a quantity defined by the paper's own equations. The fallback position is a dataset statistic, but it is only invoked when the hand detector fails or hands are not visible; it does not define or predict the keystep label. Crop size, time-warping, training epochs, and architecture are experimental choices tuned on validation, and tuning hyperparameters against a validation set is standard practice, not a circular derivation. The only self-citation in the paper is the first author's co-authorship of the Ego4D dataset paper [7], which is cited as a dataset reference and is not load-bearing for any claim. No equation in the paper reduces the output to an input by construction, and no prior author result is invoked to forbid or force an alternative. The skeptic's missing-control concern about the absence of a fixed-location 25% crop comparison is an experimental-confound critique about causal attribution of the improvement to hands, not an internal circularity; it does not meet the standard of exhibiting a specific reduction of a prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a few hand-picked preprocessing constants (crop size, fallback position, detection thresholds, smoothing) and on the domain assumption that hands carry enough context for keystep classification. No new theoretical entities or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)

crop size = 25% of frame
Chosen by hand; a larger or smaller crop changes the context available to the classifier and affects accuracy.
fallback hand position = bottom center of frame (dataset average hand location)
Computed from the training set; used whenever the hand detector fails or hands are not visible, so the crop location is fit to the dataset.
smoothing kernel S = unspecified
Post-process smoothing applied to the hand trajectory; kernel type and bandwidth are not given but affect stability and crop motion.
hand detection thresholds = unspecified
Small-sized and low-confidence detections are filtered; exact thresholds are not reported and affect which hand is tracked.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The 100DOH hand detector, trained on ego-images, reliably detects the camera wearer's hands in Ego-Exo4D frames.
Section 3 relies on D to produce per-frame hand boxes; failures are handled only by a fixed fallback.
domain assumption Hands and their immediate context contain sufficient information to classify fine-grained keysteps.
This is the motivating hypothesis in Sections 1 and 4; the benchmark result is evidence for it, but it is assumed before the experiment.
domain assumption A square 25% crop around the hand centroid preserves the task-relevant visual details.
Crop size is fixed for all tasks and clips; no analysis is provided for how much context is lost.
domain assumption TimeSformer pretrained on Kinetics-600 transfers to both ego and hand-focused video.
Used in Section 4.1 for initialization; the paper does not test other backbones.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Keystep Recognition in Ego-Video via Dexterous Focus." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXYCSS6M

@misc{pith2026250600827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Keystep Recognition in Ego-Video via Dexterous Focus},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXYCSS6M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00827}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we address the challenge of understanding human activities from an egocentric perspective. Traditional activity recognition techniques face unique challenges in egocentric videos due to the highly dynamic nature of the head during many activities. We propose a framework that seeks to address these challenges in a way that is independent of network architecture by restricting the ego-video input to a stabilized, hand-focused video. We demonstrate that this straightforward video transformation alone outperforms existing egocentric video baselines on the Ego-Exo4D Fine-Grained Keystep Recognition benchmark without requiring any alteration of the underlying model infrastructure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00827 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Dexterous Focus. Egocentric videos often contain significant dynamic motion, head tilting, and distracting elements in e.g. dexterous tasks. By restricting the ego video to only tracking the area around the camera-wearer’s hands, we allow the model to mainly focus on relevant features for activity understanding, and we show improved performance on human activity understanding without needing to augment existing vid… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

Introducing hot3d: An egocentric dataset for 3d hand and object tracking, 2024

Prithviraj Banerjee, Sindi Shkodrani, Pierre Moulon, Shreyas Hampali, Fan Zhang, Jade Fountain, Edward Miller, Selen Basol, Richard Newcombe, Robert Wang, Jakob Julian Engel, and Tomas Hodan. Introducing hot3d: An egocentric dataset for 3d hand and object tracking, 2024. 1, 2

work page 2024
[2]

Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021

Gedas Bertasius, Heng Wang, and Lorenzo Torresani. Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021. 2

work page 2021
[3]

A dense-sparse complementary network for human ac- tion recognition based on rgb and skeleton modalities.Expert Systems with Applications, 244:123061, 2024

Qin Cheng, Jun Cheng, Zhen Liu, Ziliang Ren, and Jianming Liu. A dense-sparse complementary network for human ac- tion recognition based on rgb and skeleton modalities.Expert Systems with Applications, 244:123061, 2024. 1

work page 2024
[4]

Rescaling egocentric vision: Collection, pipeline and challenges for epic-kitchens-100

Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Antonino Furnari, Jian Ma, Evangelos Kazakos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, and Michael Wray. Rescaling egocentric vision: Collection, pipeline and challenges for epic-kitchens-100. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 130:33–55, 2022. 1, 2

work page 2022
[5]

Activitynet: A large-scale video bench- mark for human activity understanding

Bernard Ghanem Fabian Caba Heilbron, Victor Escorcia and Juan Carlos Niebles. Activitynet: A large-scale video bench- mark for human activity understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 961–970, 2015. 1

work page 2015
[6]

The” something something” video database for learning and evaluating visual common sense

Raghav Goyal, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Vincent Michal- ski, Joanna Materzynska, Susanne Westphal, Heuna Kim, Valentin Haenel, Ingo Fruend, Peter Yianilos, Moritz Mueller-Freitag, et al. The” something something” video database for learning and evaluating visual common sense. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on com- puter vision, pages 584...

2017
[7]

Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video

Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Eugene Byrne, Zachary Chavis, Antonino Furnari, Rohit Girdhar, Jackson Hamburger, Hao Jiang, Miao Liu, Xingyu Liu, Miguel Mar- tin, Tushar Nagarajan, et al. Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 18973–18990, 2022. 1, 2

work page 2022
[8]

Ego-exo4d: Understanding skilled human activity from first- and third-person perspectives

Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Lorenzo Torresani, Kris Kitani, Jitendra Malik, Triantafyllos Afouras, Kumar Ashutosh, Vijay Baiyya, Siddhant Bansal, Bikram Boote, et al. Ego-exo4d: Understanding skilled human activity from first- and third-person perspectives. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), ...

work page 2024

Show all 25 references

[9]

Jiang, J

Y .-G. Jiang, J. Liu, A. Roshan Zamir, G. Toderici, I. Laptev, M. Shah, and R. Sukthankar. THUMOS challenge: Action recognition with a large number of classes, 2014. 1

2014
[10]

The kinetics hu- man action video dataset

Will Kay, Joao Carreira, Karen Simonyan, Brian Zhang, Chloe Hillier, Sudheendra Vijayanarasimhan, Fabio Viola, Tim Green, Trevor Back, Paul Natsev, et al. The kinetics hu- man action video dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.06950,

arXiv
[11]

Epic-fusion: Audio-visual temporal binding for egocentric action recognition

Evangelos Kazakos, Arsha Nagrani, Andrew Zisserman, and Dima Damen. Epic-fusion: Audio-visual temporal binding for egocentric action recognition. In IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2019. 2

2019
[12]

Human action recognition and predic- tion: A survey

Yu Kong and Yun Fu. Human action recognition and predic- tion: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision , 130(5):1366–1401, 2022. 1

2022
[13]

X-mic: Cross-modal instance conditioning for egocentric action gen- eralization

Anna Kukleva, Fadime Sener, Edoardo Remelli, Bugra Tekin, Eric Sauser, Bernt Schiele, and Shugao Ma. X-mic: Cross-modal instance conditioning for egocentric action gen- eralization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024. 2, 3

2024
[14]

Ego-exo: Transferring visual representations from third-person to first-person videos

Yanghao Li, Tushar Nagarajan, Bo Xiong, and Kristen Grau- man. Ego-exo: Transferring visual representations from third-person to first-person videos. In CVPR, 2021. 2

2021
[15]

Egocentric video-language pretraining

Kevin Qinghong Lin, Alex Jinpeng Wang, Mattia Sol- dan, Michael Wray, Rui Yan, Eric Zhongcong Xu, Difei Gao, Rongcheng Tu, Wenzhe Zhao, Weijie Kong, et al. Egocentric video-language pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01670, 2022. 2

2022 arXiv
[16]

Where a strong backbone meets strong features – action- former for ego4d moment queries challenge

Fangzhou Mu, Sicheng Mo, Gillian Wang, and Yin Li. Where a strong backbone meets strong features – action- former for ego4d moment queries challenge. arXiv e-prints,
[17]

Egoenv: Human- centric environment representations from egocentric video

Tushar Nagarajan, Santhosh Kumar Ramakrishnan, Ruta De- sai, James Hillis, and Kristen Grauman. Egoenv: Human- centric environment representations from egocentric video. In NeurIPS, 2023. 2, 3

2023
[18]

Project aria: A new tool for ego- centric multi-modal ai research, 2023

Richard Newcombe et al. Project aria: A new tool for ego- centric multi-modal ai research, 2023. 1

2023
[19]

Egovideo: Exploring egocentric foun- dation model and downstream adaptation

Baoqi Pei, Guo Chen, Jilan Xu, Yuping He, Yicheng Liu, Kanghua Pan, Yifei Huang, Yali Wang, Tong Lu, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. Egovideo: Exploring egocentric foun- dation model and downstream adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18070, 2024. 2

2024 arXiv
[20]

Egovlpv2: Egocentric video- language pre-training with fusion in the backbone

Shraman Pramanick, Yale Song, Sayan Nag, Kevin Qinghong Lin, Hardik Shah, Mike Zheng Shou, Rama Chel- lappa, and Pengchuan Zhang. Egovlpv2: Egocentric video- language pre-training with fusion in the backbone. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05463, 2023. 2

2023 arXiv
[21]

Understanding human hands in contact at internet scale

Dandan Shan, Jiaqi Geng, Michelle Shu, and David Fouhey. Understanding human hands in contact at internet scale. In CVPR, 2020. 2

2020
[22]

Repre- sentation learning with contrastive predictive coding

A ¨aron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. Repre- sentation learning with contrastive predictive coding. ArXiv, abs/1807.03748, 2018. 3

2018 arXiv
[23]

Internvideo: General video foundation models via generative and discriminative learning

Yi Wang, Kunchang Li, Yizhuo Li, Yinan He, Bingkun Huang, Zhiyu Zhao, Hongjie Zhang, Jilan Xu, Yi Liu, Zun Wang, Sen Xing, Guo Chen, Junting Pan, Jiashuo Yu, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. Internvideo: General video foundation models via generative and discriminative lear...

2022 arXiv
[24]

M&m mix: A multimodal multiview transformer ensemble

Xuehan Xiong, Anurag Arnab, Arsha Nagrani, and Cordelia Schmid. M&m mix: A multimodal multiview transformer ensemble. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.09852, 2022. 2

2022 arXiv
[25]

Actionformer: Lo- calizing moments of actions with transformers

Chen-Lin Zhang, Jianxin Wu, and Yin Li. Actionformer: Lo- calizing moments of actions with transformers. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 492–510, 2022. 2

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Introducing hot3d: An egocentric dataset for 3d hand and object tracking, 2024

Prithviraj Banerjee, Sindi Shkodrani, Pierre Moulon, Shreyas Hampali, Fan Zhang, Jade Fountain, Edward Miller, Selen Basol, Richard Newcombe, Robert Wang, Jakob Julian Engel, and Tomas Hodan. Introducing hot3d: An egocentric dataset for 3d hand and object tracking, 2024. 1, 2

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021

Gedas Bertasius, Heng Wang, and Lorenzo Torresani. Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2021. 2

work page 2021

[3] [3]

A dense-sparse complementary network for human ac- tion recognition based on rgb and skeleton modalities.Expert Systems with Applications, 244:123061, 2024

Qin Cheng, Jun Cheng, Zhen Liu, Ziliang Ren, and Jianming Liu. A dense-sparse complementary network for human ac- tion recognition based on rgb and skeleton modalities.Expert Systems with Applications, 244:123061, 2024. 1

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Rescaling egocentric vision: Collection, pipeline and challenges for epic-kitchens-100

Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Antonino Furnari, Jian Ma, Evangelos Kazakos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, and Michael Wray. Rescaling egocentric vision: Collection, pipeline and challenges for epic-kitchens-100. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 130:33–55, 2022. 1, 2

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Activitynet: A large-scale video bench- mark for human activity understanding

Bernard Ghanem Fabian Caba Heilbron, Victor Escorcia and Juan Carlos Niebles. Activitynet: A large-scale video bench- mark for human activity understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 961–970, 2015. 1

work page 2015

[6] [6]

The” something something” video database for learning and evaluating visual common sense

Raghav Goyal, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Vincent Michal- ski, Joanna Materzynska, Susanne Westphal, Heuna Kim, Valentin Haenel, Ingo Fruend, Peter Yianilos, Moritz Mueller-Freitag, et al. The” something something” video database for learning and evaluating visual common sense. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on com- puter vision, pages 584...

2017

[7] [7]

Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video

Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Eugene Byrne, Zachary Chavis, Antonino Furnari, Rohit Girdhar, Jackson Hamburger, Hao Jiang, Miao Liu, Xingyu Liu, Miguel Mar- tin, Tushar Nagarajan, et al. Ego4d: Around the world in 3,000 hours of egocentric video. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 18973–18990, 2022. 1, 2

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Ego-exo4d: Understanding skilled human activity from first- and third-person perspectives

Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Lorenzo Torresani, Kris Kitani, Jitendra Malik, Triantafyllos Afouras, Kumar Ashutosh, Vijay Baiyya, Siddhant Bansal, Bikram Boote, et al. Ego-exo4d: Understanding skilled human activity from first- and third-person perspectives. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), ...

work page 2024