Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Robust Dynamic Gesture Recognition at Ultra-Long Distances

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A SlowFast-Transformer model recognizes dynamic hand gestures at up to 28 meters with 95.1% accuracy using only an RGB camera.

desk verdict Solid applied gesture-recognition paper with a genuinely new long-range dataset and a plausible 95% result, but the missing subject-disjoint test split keeps the headline claim from being fully supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18413 v1 pith:DIRWFA7N submitted 2024-11-27 cs.RO

Eran Bamani Beeri , Eden Nissinman , Avishai Sintov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords dynamicgesturerecognitionhuman-robotinteractionSlowFast-Transformerultra-long-rangevisiondistance-weightedcross-entropyRGBcameravideorobotics
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

This paper claims that dynamic hand gestures can be recognized reliably at distances up to 28 meters using only an ordinary RGB camera, something no prior gesture-recognition system has demonstrated. The proposed SlowFast-Transformer (SFT) model combines the SlowFast video architecture with Transformer attention layers to capture both slow and fast motion, and a distance-weighted cross-entropy loss pushes the model to learn far-away samples. On a self-collected dataset of 13 gestures from 16 participants, SFT reaches a 95.1% success rate, outperforming six state-of-the-art video recognition models. If correct, robots could take directional commands from people at a distance in both indoor and outdoor settings without depth sensors or wearables.

What carries the argument

The SlowFast-Transformer (SFT) model, which feeds RGB frames through a ResNet feature extractor, reduces redundancy via K-Means clustering on features, detects and crops the user with YOLOv3, then processes the remaining frames through Slow and Fast pathways. The concatenated multi-pathway features are passed through a Transformer encoder whose self-attention models long-range temporal dependencies, followed by temporal pooling and a softmax classifier. A second key component is the Distance-weighted Cross-Entropy (DCE) loss, which reweights each sample's cross-entropy by a linear factor in distance, forcing the model to improve on far-away, low-resolution gestures.

What would settle it

Record an independent test set with new users, a different RGB camera, and new indoor/outdoor locations, run the released SFT model on it, and compare success rates. If accuracy drops substantially below the reported 95.1% (for example, below 80%) or degrades faster with distance than the paper's Figure 4 curve, the central claim of robust ultra-range dynamic gesture recognition is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that combining a two-pathway SlowFast network with a Transformer encoder and a distance-weighted loss enables classification of dynamic hand gestures at distances up to 28 meters with a recognition success rate of 95.1%, well above the next-best baseline (MViT at 87.9%). The paper further introduces two evaluation metrics, Distance-Weighted Accuracy (DWA) and Gesture Stability Score (GSS), that measure robustness at long range and temporal consistency of predictions. The authors state this is the first dynamic gesture recognition method to operate at this distance with only a simple RGB camera.

Load-bearing premise

The 458-clip test set was recorded by the same team with the same camera and annotation protocol as the training data, and the paper assumes this set is representative of real-world ultra-range gesture recognition across other users, cameras, and environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robots can be directed by natural hand commands from up to 28 meters, which is useful for search-and-rescue, drone operations, and service robotics in open spaces.
  • Only a simple RGB camera is needed, so the method can be deployed on existing robots and surveillance equipment without depth or wearable sensors.
  • The 95.1% success rate with 13 classes, including confusable static/dynamic pairs, suggests the architecture handles the low-resolution far-field regime well.
  • The DCE loss and the two new metrics give the field a template for training and benchmarking distance-robust gesture recognition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same architecture likely transfers to other long-range video tasks such as person-level action recognition, since the core problem is the same low-resolution far-field temporal classification.
  • Because the model uses only 8 representative frames after K-Means clustering, its run-time could be low enough for real-time use, although the paper does not report frames-per-second numbers.
  • The DCE loss could be replaced by a continuous distance-aware sampling strategy; the paper's ablation shows removing it drops accuracy by 6.6 points, so the weighting scheme itself is a testable hypothesis.
  • The public dataset release will let other groups measure cross-user and cross-camera generalization, which the current evaluation does not address.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SlowFast-Transformer (SFT), which combines a SlowFast video backbone with a Transformer encoder, together with a Distance-weighted Cross-Entropy (DCE) loss, for dynamic hand gesture recognition at distances up to 28 m using only an RGB camera. The authors collected a dataset from 16 participants across indoor and outdoor settings and report a 95.1% success rate on a separate 458-clip test set, outperforming six video recognition baselines. Additional experiments analyze distance-dependent accuracy, input window length, component ablations, gesture-sequence accuracy, and lighting conditions.

Significance. If the reported results hold, this is a notable practical advance: it extends dynamic gesture recognition from roughly 7 m to 28 m with commodity hardware, and it includes a systematic comparison against six modern video recognition baselines, an ablation study, and newly proposed distance-focused metrics. The architectural novelty is incremental (SlowFast plus Transformer), but the ultra-range dataset and evaluation are a real contribution, and the planned public release of models and data would support reproducibility. The main risk is that the test set may not support the generalization claim because the paper does not demonstrate that test participants are disjoint from the 16 training participants, and the headline accuracy has an unexplained inconsistency between Table II and Figure 6.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B (Dataset)] Section III-B states that 16 participants contributed to dataset D and that an additional test set of K=458 videos was recorded in distinct environments, but it never states that the participants in the test set were disjoint from the training participants. Because the entire participant pool is only 16 people, overlapping subjects between train and test would allow the model to exploit person-specific appearance, clothing, and gesturing style, inflating the reported 95.1% without demonstrating generalization to unseen users. The paper should either report a subject-disjoint split or explicitly state the overlap and justify why it does not affect the conclusions.
  2. [Section III-C and Figure 6] Section III-C and Table II report a 95.1% success rate for SFT, while Figure 6 reports an average success rate of 95.7% when the full dataset of 4,790 images is used. The text does not explain whether Table II corresponds to a single run, a cross-validation fold, or the average of the 10 training repetitions used in Figure 6; the difference is too large to be a rounding artifact. Please reconcile these numbers and report the exact evaluation protocol used for the headline result.
  3. [Section III-C (Table II)] All comparative results in Table II are point estimates with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, even though Figure 6 shows that the authors train the model 10 times for the data-amount curve. Without uncertainty measures, the claimed superiority over MViT (87.9% vs. 95.1%) cannot be assessed for stability; add at least mean and standard deviation or bootstrap intervals for the main comparison.
  4. [Equation (3), Section II-D] Equation (3) defines the DCE loss with free parameters alpha, b0, and b1, but the paper never reports their values or states whether the multiplicative weight is clipped to be nonnegative. Since DCE is a named contribution and the distance thresholds directly control training behavior, the missing hyperparameters make the method irreproducible; please provide the values and any clipping or regularization applied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C] The phrase 'the pixel extension added around the bounding box was b/a' needs a clearer definition: is b/a a number of pixels in each direction, a fraction of the diagonal, or an aspect-ratio-preserving scale? Please state the value of a used.
  2. [Section III-A] The sentence 'Another four static gestures are included' is confusing because the eight dynamic gestures plus four static ones plus the null class sum to 13; please rephrase the count to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Figure 6] Figure 6 refers to 'labeled images' although the dataset units are video samples; align the terminology with Section III-B so that the x-axis and the reported M=4,790 samples are consistent.
  4. [Table I] In the row for Bokstaller et al., replace the dash in the Range column with 'not reported' to avoid ambiguity about the experimental range.
  5. [Footnote 1] The footnote says code and datasets will be available upon acceptance; consider making the release concrete (for example, a permanent repository URL) to support reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 95.1% result is an empirical measurement, not a consequence of the loss or metric definitions.

full rationale

This is an empirical systems paper rather than an analytic derivation, and the claimed results do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The headline 95.1% success rate is measured on a held-out test set with an unweighted classification metric; the DCE loss modifies the training objective using distance labels, but nothing in Equation (3) forces the unweighted test accuracy to take any particular value. The proposed DWA and GSS metrics share a distance-emphasis philosophy with DCE, but they are evaluation tools reported alongside standard metrics (success rate, F1, mAP), and the comparative and ablation results (Tables II and III) are empirical comparisons, not analytic consequences of the loss definition. The self-citations to prior work by the same authors, [7] and [18], are used to position the static-gesture predecessor and are not load-bearing premises for the dynamic-gesture claim. The reader's concern about possible subject overlap between training and test, and the skeptic's related attack, are data-validity and generalization questions, not circularity: the paper never defines its test set in terms of its training objective, and no equation is shown to equal another by construction. Consequently, no circular step meets the evidentiary bar for a positive finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several untested domain assumptions and hand-chosen hyperparameters. The most important are listed here; none of the assumptions are machine-checked or backed by external data.

free parameters (5)
  • Distance weighting factor alpha in DCE loss
    Appears in Eq. 3; controls how strongly far-distance samples are upweighted. No value or tuning range is reported.
  • Distance thresholds b0 and b1 in DCE loss
    Predefined bounds in Eq. 3; values not reported.
  • DWA metric weighting beta = 1.6
    Hand-chosen constant in Eq. 4 that sets the maximum distance emphasis in the proposed evaluation metric.
  • User-to-image ratio parameter a for bounding-box extension
    Controls how much background is kept around the detected user before resizing to 224x224; value not reported.
  • Number of representative frames k = 8
    Chosen for K-Means frame reduction in Section II-C; affects temporal information available to the classifier.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ResNet features computed on full frames are a sufficient representation for K-Means to select informative representative frames at ultra-long distances.
    Invoked in Section II-C; if the selected 8 frames miss the dynamic phase, the model cannot recognize the gesture.
  • domain assumption YOLOv3 detects and crops the user reliably at distances up to 28 meters where the user may occupy few pixels.
    Invoked in Section II-C; cropping errors would remove the hand or include background noise.
  • domain assumption Manually annotated gesture labels and measured distances in the dataset are accurate.
    Dataset construction in Section III-B; errors in labels or distances would propagate through training and the DCE loss.
  • domain assumption The separate test set of 458 videos recorded in distinct environments is representative of the intended deployment conditions.
    Section III-B; all models are compared only on this internal test set, with no external benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Dynamic Gesture Recognition at Ultra-Long Distances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DIRWFA7N

@misc{pith2026241118413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Dynamic Gesture Recognition at Ultra-Long Distances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DIRWFA7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18413}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic hand gestures play a crucial role in conveying nonverbal information for Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), eliminating the need for complex interfaces. Current models for dynamic gesture recognition suffer from limitations in effective recognition range, restricting their application to close proximity scenarios. In this letter, we present a novel approach to recognizing dynamic gestures in an ultra-range distance of up to 28 meters, enabling natural, directive communication for guiding robots in both indoor and outdoor environments. Our proposed SlowFast-Transformer (SFT) model effectively integrates the SlowFast architecture with Transformer layers to efficiently process and classify gesture sequences captured at ultra-range distances, overcoming challenges of low resolution and environmental noise. We further introduce a distance-weighted loss function shown to enhance learning and improve model robustness at varying distances. Our model demonstrates significant performance improvement over state-of-the-art gesture recognition frameworks, achieving a recognition accuracy of 95.1% on a diverse dataset with challenging ultra-range gestures. This enables robots to react appropriately to human commands from a far distance, providing an essential enhancement in HRI, especially in scenarios requiring seamless and natural interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstration of a user instructing a robot to go back by sweeping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed SFT framework for dynamic hand gesture recognition. The framework starts with feature extraction using ResNet, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The eight dynamic gestures used in the analysis include: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gesture recognition success rate of the SFT model with regard to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Confusion matrix for the gesture classification with the SFT model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gesture recognition success rate of the SFT model with regard to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Human–robot interaction: a survey,

    M. A. Goodrich, A. C. Schultz et al. , “Human–robot interaction: a survey,” Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction , vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 203–275, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Natural multimodal communication for human–robot collaboration,

    I. Maurtua, I. Fernandez, A. Tellaeche, J. Kildal, L. Susperregi, A. Ibarguren, and B. Sierra, “Natural multimodal communication for human–robot collaboration,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 1729881417716043, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Robust real-time hand detection and lo- calization for space human–robot interaction based on deep learning,

    Q. Gao, J. Liu, and Z. Ju, “Robust real-time hand detection and lo- calization for space human–robot interaction based on deep learning,” Neurocomputing, vol. 390, pp. 198–206, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Hand and arm gesture- based human-robot interaction: A review,

    X. Wang, H. Shen, H. Yu, J. Guo, and X. Wei, “Hand and arm gesture- based human-robot interaction: A review,” in International Conference on Algorithms, Computing and Systems , 2022, pp. 1–7

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Nonverbal cues in human–robot inter- action: A communication studies perspective,

    J. Urakami and K. Seaborn, “Nonverbal cues in human–robot inter- action: A communication studies perspective,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1–21, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Vision-based hand- gesture applications,

    J. P. Wachs, M. K ¨olsch, H. Stern, and Y . Edan, “Vision-based hand- gesture applications,” Commun. ACM, vol. 54, no. 2, p. 60–71, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Recognition and estimation of human finger pointing with an RGB camera for robot directive,

    E. Bamani, E. Nissinman, L. Koenigsberg, I. Meir, Y . Matalon, and A. Sintov, “Recognition and estimation of human finger pointing with an RGB camera for robot directive,” 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Racon: A gesture recognition approach via doppler radar for intelligent human-robot interaction,

    K. Zhang, Z. Yu, D. Zhang, Z. Wang, and B. Guo, “Racon: A gesture recognition approach via doppler radar for intelligent human-robot interaction,” in IEEE international conference on pervasive computing and communications workshops (PerCom Workshops) , 2020, pp. 1–6

    work page 2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    A multi-sensor gesture interaction system for human-robot cooperation,

    J. Yu, M. Li, X. Zhang, T. Zhang, and X. Zhou, “A multi-sensor gesture interaction system for human-robot cooperation,” in IEEE In- ternational Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC) , vol. 1, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  2. [10]

    Dynamic gesture recognition based on 2D convolutional neural network and feature fusion,

    J. Yu, M. Qin, and S. Zhou, “Dynamic gesture recognition based on 2D convolutional neural network and feature fusion,” Scientific Reports , vol. 12, p. 4345, 03 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Visual recognition of pointing gestures for human–robot interaction,

    K. Nickel and R. Stiefelhagen, “Visual recognition of pointing gestures for human–robot interaction,” Image and vision computing , vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1875–1884, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    Long-range hand gesture recognition via attention-based ssd network,

    L. Zhou, C. Du, Z. Sun, T. L. Lam, and Y . Xu, “Long-range hand gesture recognition via attention-based ssd network,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2021, pp. 1832–1838

    2021

  5. [13]

    Mask-guided multiscale feature aggregation network for hand gesture recognition,

    H. Liang, L. Fei, S. Zhao, J. Wen, S. Teng, and Y . Xu, “Mask-guided multiscale feature aggregation network for hand gesture recognition,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 145, p. 109901, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Non-contact gesture recognition using the electric field disturbance for smart device application,

    Y . Kim and C. Moon, “Non-contact gesture recognition using the electric field disturbance for smart device application,” International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 133–140, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Gesture based human multi- robot interaction,

    G. Canal, C. Angulo, and S. Escalera, “Gesture based human multi- robot interaction,” in IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2015, pp. 1–8

    2015

  8. [16]

    An overview of spatial-temporal human gesture recognition under degraded environments using integral imaging,

    X. Shen, H.-S. Kim, S. Komatsu, A. Markman, and B. Javidi, “An overview of spatial-temporal human gesture recognition under degraded environments using integral imaging,” Three-Dimensional Imaging, Visualization, and Display 2019 , vol. 10997, pp. 161–167, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Three-dimensional integral imaging for gesture recognition under occlusions,

    F. Pla, P. Latorre-Carmona, E. Salvador-Balaguer, and B. Javidi, “Three-dimensional integral imaging for gesture recognition under occlusions,” in Computational Imaging III , vol. 10669. SPIE, 2018, pp. 14–19

    2018

  10. [18]

    Ultra-range gesture recognition using a web-camera in human-robot interaction,

    E. Bamani, E. Nissinman, I. Meir, L. Koenigsberg, and A. Sintov, “Ultra-range gesture recognition using a web-camera in human-robot interaction,” Eng. Applications of Artificial Intelligence, In press, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    From hands to minds: Gestures promote un- derstanding,

    S. Kang and B. Tversky, “From hands to minds: Gestures promote un- derstanding,” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications , vol. 1, p. 4, 12 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    The role of gesture in communication and cognition: Implications for understanding and treating neurogenic communication disorders,

    S. Clough and M. C. Duff, “The role of gesture in communication and cognition: Implications for understanding and treating neurogenic communication disorders,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 14, p. 323, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Online dynamic gesture recognition for human robot interaction,

    D. Xu, X. Wu, Y .-L. Chen, and Y . Xu, “Online dynamic gesture recognition for human robot interaction,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 583–596, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Kinect sensor-based long-distance hand gesture recognition and fingertip detection with depth information,

    X. Ma and J. Peng, “Kinect sensor-based long-distance hand gesture recognition and fingertip detection with depth information,” Journal of Sensors, vol. 2018, no. 1, p. 5809769, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    A novel dynamic hand gesture and movement trajectory recognition model for non-touch hri interface,

    R. Kabir, N. Ahmed, N. Roy, and M. R. Islam, “A novel dynamic hand gesture and movement trajectory recognition model for non-touch hri interface,” in IEEE Eurasia Conference on IOT, Communication and Engineering (ECICE), 2019, pp. 505–508

    2019

  16. [24]

    Dynamic gesture recognition,

    J. Bokstaller and C. M. Improta, “Dynamic gesture recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.09396, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Dynamic hand gesture recog- nition based on 3d hand pose estimation for human–robot interaction,

    Q. Gao, Y . Chen, Z. Ju, and Y . Liang, “Dynamic hand gesture recog- nition based on 3d hand pose estimation for human–robot interaction,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 22, no. 18, pp. 17 421–17 430, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Long-range hand gesture recognition with joint ssd network,

    C. Yi, L. Zhou, Z. Wang, Z. Sun, and C. Tan, “Long-range hand gesture recognition with joint ssd network,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics , 2018, pp. 1959–1963

    2018

  19. [27]

    Dynamic gesture recognition by using cnns and star rgb: A temporal information condensation,

    C. C. dos Santos, J. L. A. Samatelo, and R. F. Vassallo, “Dynamic gesture recognition by using cnns and star rgb: A temporal information condensation,” Neurocomputing, vol. 400, pp. 238–254, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Machine-learned wearable sensors for real- time hand-motion recognition: toward practical applications,

    K. R. Pyun, K. Kwon, M. J. Yoo, K. K. Kim, D. Gong, W.-H. Yeo, S. Han, and S. H. Ko, “Machine-learned wearable sensors for real- time hand-motion recognition: toward practical applications,” National Science Review, vol. 11, no. 2, p. nwad298, 11 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    A review of hand gesture recognition systems based on noninvasive wearable sensors,

    R. Tchantchane, H. Zhou, S. Zhang, and G. Alici, “A review of hand gesture recognition systems based on noninvasive wearable sensors,” Advanced Intelligent Systems , vol. 5, no. 10, p. 2300207, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Dynamic hand gesture recognition from multi-modal streams using deep neural network,

    T.-H. Tran, H.-N. Tran, and H.-G. Doan, “Dynamic hand gesture recognition from multi-modal streams using deep neural network,” in International conference on multi-disciplinary trends in artificial intelligence. Springer, 2019, pp. 156–167

    2019

  23. [31]

    Deep dynamic neural networks for multimodal gesture segmentation and recognition,

    D. Wu, L. Pigou, P.-J. Kindermans, N. D.-H. Le, L. Shao, J. Dambre, and J.-M. Odobez, “Deep dynamic neural networks for multimodal gesture segmentation and recognition,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1583–1597, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    3d convolutional neural networks for human action recognition,

    S. Ji, W. Xu, M. Yang, and K. Yu, “3d convolutional neural networks for human action recognition,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 221–231, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    SlowFast networks for video recognition,

    C. Feichtenhofer, H. Fan, J. Malik, and K. He, “SlowFast networks for video recognition,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 6201–6210

    2019

  26. [34]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Audiovisual slowfast networks for video recognition,

    F. Xiao, Y . J. Lee, K. Grauman, J. Malik, and C. Feichtenhofer, “Audiovisual slowfast networks for video recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08740, 2020

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A multigrid method for efficiently training video models,

    C.-Y . Wu, R. Girshick, K. He, C. Feichtenhofer, and P. Krahenbuhl, “A multigrid method for efficiently training video models,” in IEEE/CVF Conf. on Comp. Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 153–162

    2020

  29. [37]

    Long-range trans- formers for dynamic spatiotemporal forecasting,

    J. Grigsby, Z. Wang, N. Nguyen, and Y . Qi, “Long-range trans- formers for dynamic spatiotemporal forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12218, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Self attended stack-pointer networks for learning long term dependencies,

    S. Tuc ¸ and B. Can, “Self attended stack-pointer networks for learning long term dependencies,” in International Conference on Natural Language Processing, 2020, pp. 90–100

    2020

  31. [39]

    Robust hand gesture recognition with kinect sensor,

    Z. Ren, J. Meng, J. Yuan, and Z. Zhang, “Robust hand gesture recognition with kinect sensor,” in ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2011, pp. 759–760

    2011

  32. [40]

    Challenges and solutions for vision-based hand gesture interpretation: A review,

    K. Gao, H. Zhang, X. Liu, X. Wang, L. Xie, B. Ji, Y . Yan, and E. Yin, “Challenges and solutions for vision-based hand gesture interpretation: A review,”Computer Vision & Image Understanding, p. 104095, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Human-robot perception in industrial environments: A survey,

    A. Bonci, P. D. Cen Cheng, M. Indri, G. Nabissi, and F. Sibona, “Human-robot perception in industrial environments: A survey,” Sen- sors, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 1571, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Multi-modal data fusion in enhancing human-machine interaction for robotic applications: a survey,

    T. K. Mohd, N. Nguyen, and A. Y . Javaid, “Multi-modal data fusion in enhancing human-machine interaction for robotic applications: a survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07732 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  36. [44]

    YOLOv3: An incremental improvement,

    J. Redmon and A. Farhadi, “YOLOv3: An incremental improvement,” 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Tune: A research platform for distributed model selection and training,

    R. Liaw, E. Liang, R. Nishihara, P. Moritz, J. E. Gonzalez, and I. Stoica, “Tune: A research platform for distributed model selection and training,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.05118 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Video swin transformer,

    Z. Liu, J. Ning, Y . Cao, Y . Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, and H. Hu, “Video swin transformer,” 06 2022, pp. 3192–3201

    2022

  39. [47]

    ViViT: A video vision transformer,

    A. Arnab, M. Dehghani, G. Heigold, C. Sun, M. Lucic, and C. Schmid, “ViViT: A video vision transformer,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2021, pp. 6816–6826

    2021

  40. [48]

    Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding?

    G. Bertasius, H. Wang, and L. Torresani, “Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding?” in International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , July 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Multiscale vision transformers,

    H. Fan, B. Xiong, K. Mangalam, Y . Li, Z. Yan, J. Malik, and C. Feichtenhofer, “Multiscale vision transformers,” in ICCV, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset,

    J. Carreira and A. Zisserman, “Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2017, pp. 6299–6308

    2017

  43. [51]

    X3D: Expanding architectures for efficient video recognition,

    C. Feichtenhofer, “X3D: Expanding architectures for efficient video recognition,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020, pp. 200–210

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.