REVIEW 1 cited by
Describing Common Human Visual Actions in Images
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Which common human actions and interactions are recognizable in monocular still images? Which involve objects and/or other people? How many is a person performing at a time? We address these questions by exploring the actions and interactions that are detectable in the images of the MS COCO dataset. We make two main contributions. First, a list of 140 common `visual actions', obtained by analyzing the largest on-line verb lexicon currently available for English (VerbNet) and human sentences used to describe images in MS COCO. Second, a complete set of annotations for those `visual actions', composed of subject-object and associated verb, which we call COCO-a (a for `actions'). COCO-a is larger than existing action datasets in terms of number of actions and instances of these actions, and is unique because it is data-driven, rather than experimenter-biased. Other unique features are that it is exhaustive, and that all subjects and objects are localized. A statistical analysis of the accuracy of our annotations and of each action, interaction and subject-object combination is provided.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Seeing vs. Believing: Evaluating the Language Bias of Open-Source MLLMs in Counter-Intuitive Scenes
A synthetic benchmark of counter-intuitive action scenes shows three open-source VLMs scoring far below humans (0.36–0.69 vs 0.96), but the body contradicts the abstract's broader claims.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.