2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2019
DOI: 10.1109/cvpr.2019.00810
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Skeleton-Based Action Recognition With Directed Graph Neural Networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
536
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 788 publications
(537 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
536
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We achieve better results than the current state of the art on the CS benchmark (91.8%) with 1.9% accuracy increase. On the CV benchmark, results are comparable (91.8±0.40% for FU-SION against 91.8±0.40% for DGNN [41]). We conclude to the efficacy of IR data to correctly interpret human actions.…”
Section: ) Comparison With the State Of The Artmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We achieve better results than the current state of the art on the CS benchmark (91.8%) with 1.9% accuracy increase. On the CV benchmark, results are comparable (91.8±0.40% for FU-SION against 91.8±0.40% for DGNN [41]). We conclude to the efficacy of IR data to correctly interpret human actions.…”
Section: ) Comparison With the State Of The Artmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…In [42], the length and direction of bones are used in addition to joint coordinates while adapting the topology of the graph. Shi et al represent skeleton data as a directed acyclic graph based on kinematic dependencies of joints and bones [41]. GCNs report the current state-of-the-art results on benchmark datasets.…”
Section: Related Work a Skeleton-based Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although 2s Shift-GCN [ 43 ] performs slightly better on Cross-subject benchmark of the NTU-RGB+D than our model, it is tailored for the 3D skeleton and can not be effectively applied to the 2D skeleton. The accuracy of DGNN [ 41 ] on Cross-subject benchmark of the NTU-RGB+D is slightly higher than our model by 0.4%, but the DGNN uses four input data streams while our model only uses two input data streams, and its calculation cost is 16.4 times more than our model.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…In the Kinetics dataset, we compare our model with eight state-of-the-art approaches. These eight approaches can be divided into four categories: traditional method [ 44 ], LSTM-based method [ 17 ], CNN-based method [ 24 ], and GCN-based methods [ 4 , 6 , 7 , 41 , 42 ]. Table 2 presents the top-1 and top-5 classification performances.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the 2s-AGCN in [23] contains about 6.94 million parameters, and takes nearly 4 GPU-days for model training on the NTU RGB+D 60 dataset [21]. And the DGNN [22] contains more than 26 million parameters which is very hard for parameter tuning on large-scale datasets. Thus, the high model complexity has seriously limited the development of skeleton-based action recognition, while there are few literatures on this issue.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%