2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16811-1_35
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gesture Modeling by Hanklet-Based Hidden Markov Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
36
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
1
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On the NTU RGB+D experiments, φ φ φ P improves (by margin) Fisher vectors [49], Lie group representation [7] as [22] 92.2 64.0 T-approx [20] 92.8 62.0 φ φ φ kron−e (proposed) 92.3 65.0 φ φ φ kron−π (proposed) 95.6 66.5 t-COV-pyramid [30] 89.2 -Bregman-div [3] 89.9 58.2 Ker-RP-RBF [2] 92.3 66.2 J-DI E -CNN [14] 93.1 − Ker-COV [4] 95.0 rnd-logHS [17] 97. [22] 88.2 88.6 84.0 T-approx [20] 89.6 88.9 84.0 φ φ φ kron−e (proposed) 89.5 89.6 84.4 φ φ φ kron−π (proposed) 89.9 89.9 84.0 t-COV-pyramid [30] 74.0 91.5 -H-HMM [32] 89.0 -86.8 rnd-logHS [17] 91.5 88.5 89.7 QMC-logHS [17] 90 Classification accuracies [%] for 3D action recognition. For each table, the top part present the performance achieved by φ φ φ kron−π and φ φ φ kron−e against other alternative approximating schemes [19], [20], [21], [22], [29]: within this class of methods, the best accuracy is highlighted in bold.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the NTU RGB+D experiments, φ φ φ P improves (by margin) Fisher vectors [49], Lie group representation [7] as [22] 92.2 64.0 T-approx [20] 92.8 62.0 φ φ φ kron−e (proposed) 92.3 65.0 φ φ φ kron−π (proposed) 95.6 66.5 t-COV-pyramid [30] 89.2 -Bregman-div [3] 89.9 58.2 Ker-RP-RBF [2] 92.3 66.2 J-DI E -CNN [14] 93.1 − Ker-COV [4] 95.0 rnd-logHS [17] 97. [22] 88.2 88.6 84.0 T-approx [20] 89.6 88.9 84.0 φ φ φ kron−e (proposed) 89.5 89.6 84.4 φ φ φ kron−π (proposed) 89.9 89.9 84.0 t-COV-pyramid [30] 74.0 91.5 -H-HMM [32] 89.0 -86.8 rnd-logHS [17] 91.5 88.5 89.7 QMC-logHS [17] 90 Classification accuracies [%] for 3D action recognition. For each table, the top part present the performance achieved by φ φ φ kron−π and φ φ φ kron−e against other alternative approximating schemes [19], [20], [21], [22], [29]: within this class of methods, the best accuracy is highlighted in bold.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is a challenging dataset because many of the actions are highly similar to each other. Comparative analysis We benchmarked the proposed (Log-COV-Net) against the Hankel-based approaches [22,43], used in tandem with either a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) or a Riemannian-nearest neighbors classifier with prototypes (Hankel-NN-proto). Also, we compared against the tensor representation provided by [18] in using Sequence and Dynamics Compatibility Kernels (SCK+DCK).…”
Section: Msr-action 3dmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hankel-HMM [22] 89.0% SCK + DCK [18] 94.0% Hankel-NN-proto [43] 94.7% graph-joint-LSTM [21] 94.8% Kernelized-COV [3] 96.8% Ker-RP-RBF [37] 96.9% Log-COV-Net (proposed) 97.4% Table 1. Evaluation on MSR-Action-3D using the protocol of [20].…”
Section: Msr-action 3dmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Presti et al [22] used linear time invariant (LTI) systems to model subsets of activity demonstrations within fixed size sliding temporal windows, utilizing trained HMMs on the global space of LTIs for classification. A sliding window technique was also used by Gori et al [9], who applied learned 1-D Gaussian filters through time over feature patches extracted from interactions between joint pairs, allowing for quick and robust identification of individual activities and multi-party interactions.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%