2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/cvpr.2016.487
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficient Temporal Sequence Comparison and Classification Using Gram Matrix Embeddings on a Riemannian Manifold

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
75
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
75
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Then, we evaluated the proposed metric with respect to other metrics used in state of the art solutions. Specifically, given two matrices G 1 and G 2 in S + (3, n), we compared our results with two other possible metrics: (1) as proposed in [12], [59], we used d Pn that was defined in Eq. (7) to compare G 1 and G 2 by regularizing their ranks, i.e., making them n full-rank, and considering them in P n (the space of n-by-n positive definite matrices), d Pn (G 1 , G 2 ) = d Pn (G 1 + I n , G 2 + I n ); (2) we used the Euclidean flat distance d F + (G 1 , G 2 ) = G 1 − G 2 F , where .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Then, we evaluated the proposed metric with respect to other metrics used in state of the art solutions. Specifically, given two matrices G 1 and G 2 in S + (3, n), we compared our results with two other possible metrics: (1) as proposed in [12], [59], we used d Pn that was defined in Eq. (7) to compare G 1 and G 2 by regularizing their ranks, i.e., making them n full-rank, and considering them in P n (the space of n-by-n positive definite matrices), d Pn (G 1 , G 2 ) = d Pn (G 1 + I n , G 2 + I n ); (2) we used the Euclidean flat distance d F + (G 1 , G 2 ) = G 1 − G 2 F , where .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In both of these works kernelized versions of covariance matrices are considered. Zhang et al [12] represented temporal landmark sequences using regularized Gram matrices derived from the Hankel matrices of landmark sequences. The authors show that the Hankel matrix of a 3D landmark sequence is related to an Auto-Regressive (AR) model [13], where only the linear relationships between landmark static observations are captured.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accuracy (%) Moving Pose [40] 56.34 JOULE-pose [10] 74.60 HBRNN [5] 77.40 TF [6] 80.69 Lie Group [37] 82.69 Gram Matrix [42] 85. 39 tions and the TTN outputs, it can be readily observed that the TTN performs alignment of the sequences which then makes the classification problem much easier.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results obtained are shown in Table 1. In addition to our experiments, we have reported results given in [7] for other important algorithms used for 3D pose-based action recognition including JOULE-pose [10], Moving Pose [40], Hierarchical Recurrent Neural Networks (HBRNN) [5], Transition Forests (TF) [6], and Lie Groups [37] and the Gram Matrix method [42], the last two of which also used DTW for sequence alignment, as well as non-Euclidean features to help improve performance. Among the baseline neural networks, TCN-32 led to the best results for this dataset, and addition of more layers did not yield better performance.…”
Section: Icl First-person Hand Action Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We follow usual training and testing splits proposed in the literature. For Florence3D, G3D, and UTKinect, we use the protocols of [7], [33], [34]. For MSR-Action3D, we adopt the splits originally proposed by [44].…”
Section: D Action Recognition Datasets and Preprocessingmentioning
confidence: 99%