Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 102 references

Designing Semi-Structured Pruning of Graph Convolutional Networks for Skeleton-based Recognition

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Semi-structured pruning of GCNs achieves the best accuracy–speedup trade-off at high pruning rates in skeleton-based recognition.

desk verdict A genuinely new semi-structured pruning cascade with careful derivations, but the central accuracy–speedup claim rests on an undefined SpeedUp metric and one table row contradicts it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11813 v1 pith:X3WWZRGS submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CV

Hichem Sahbi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semi-structuredpruninggraphconvolutionalnetworksskeleton-basedactionrecognitionmagnitudeweightsharingtensorrankregularizationhand-gesturedifferentiablemasks
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

The paper argues that the best way to prune graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based recognition is to prune neither purely structurally nor purely unstructured, but semi-structurally: remove some connections individually and others in whole rows, columns, or blocks, with a single differentiable cascade deciding which. To do this it ties every mask decision to one shared latent tensor through three stacked parameterizations — a band-stop function of weight magnitude, a weight-sharing step that groups entries, and a gating step that assigns each connection to block, column, row, or entry-wise pruning. The cascade is trained end-to-end with a classification loss, a budget loss that hits any target pruning rate, and a surrogate rank term that compacts tensors so the pruned network is actually faster. On the SBU and FPHA benchmarks the method reports, at 95 to 98 percent pruning, accuracy close to unstructured pruning alongside speedups far beyond what unstructured pruning achieves, which is the trade-off that matters for deploying GCNs on edge devices.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a cascaded mask parametrization $\psi = \psi_3\circ\psi_2\circ\psi_1$ acting entry-wise and group-wise on a single latent weight tensor $\hat{W}$. $\psi_1$ is a smooth band-stop function $\psi_1(\omega) = 2(1+\exp(-\sigma\omega^2))^{-1}-1$ that drives small magnitudes to zero; $\psi_2$ ties mask entries into rows, columns, or blocks via permutation matrices; $\psi_3$ gates among these with fixed priority block $>$ column $>$ row $>$ entry, so at most one mechanism acts per connection. Training minimizes a cross-entropy loss plus a budget loss $(1^\top[\psi(\hat{W})]1 - c)^2$ and a surrogate rank regularizer $r[W]$ that counts near-null rows and columns; after training, layer-wise reordering of dimensions turns the low-rank masks into compact tensors that are actually faster to multiply.

What would settle it

Measure wall-clock inference time of the pruned GCNs on the same GPU before and after the layer-wise dimension reordering, at each reported pruning rate, and compare against the SpeedUp ratios: if the reordered tensors do not yield runtime reductions roughly proportional to the number of surviving rows and columns, the trade-off claim fails. A second check is to verify that the surrogate rank $r[W]$ actually reaches small values in the trained masks and that the mask tensors have zero (or near-zero) rows and columns rather than scattered nonzeros.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that semi-structured magnitude pruning — implemented as the cascade $\psi_3\circ\psi_2\circ\psi_1$ applied to a latent tensor $\hat{W}$ — dominates both pure structured and pure unstructured pruning on the accuracy–speedup trade-off. In the reported experiments, at 95 percent pruning on SBU the semi-structured cascade reaches 93.84 percent accuracy with a 106$x$ speedup after rank optimization, while structured pruning reaches 87.69 percent at 787$x$ and unstructured pruning reaches 92.30 percent with no actual speedup. The same pattern holds on FPHA: at 95 percent pruning, semi-structured gives 74.60 percent at 214$x$ versus 80.17 percent at 29$x$ for unstructured. The paper attributes this to the cascade's ability to prune coarsely where safe (blocks, columns, rows) and finely where needed (individual entries), so the surviving tensor has both high accuracy and genuinely reduced dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that semi-structured pruning is faster in practice rests on the unstated "SpeedUp" numbers in Tables 4 and 5 and on the assumption that minimizing the surrogate rank term $r[W]$ really compacts the tensors after layer-wise reordering; if that surrogate does not translate into smaller tensors, or if the speedup ratio is not a measured runtime, the central accuracy–speedup advantage is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 95 percent pruning on SBU, semi-structured with rank optimization keeps 93.84 percent accuracy while reaching 106$x$ speedup, versus 92.30 percent accuracy with no actual speedup for unstructured pruning.
  • At 98 percent pruning, semi-structured still preserves 86.15 percent on SBU (607$x$) and 73.91 percent on FPHA (278$x$), staying above the accuracy of all four compared regularization-based pruning methods.
  • The gating priority — block, then column, then row, then entry — means that at low pruning budgets the network prunes coarsely and only falls back to fine-grained entry-wise pruning when needed, which is what preserves accuracy at extreme rates.
  • Because masks and weights share the latent tensor, the method adds no extra parameters beyond the original network and remains end-to-end trainable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same cascade could be applied to other structured layers — attention heads, convolutions, or RNN gates — wherever block-wise and entry-wise pruning can be mixed, so the method may transfer beyond skeleton GCNs.
  • A precise definition of SpeedUp would strengthen the claim; reporting measured GPU latency and FLOPs before and after reordering would let readers verify whether the rank surrogate delivers real runtime savings.
  • The annealing of $\sigma$ and $\gamma$ suggests a natural curriculum: start with smooth masks and gradually sharpen them, which could make the budget loss converge to exact target rates more reliably than the $\lambda = 1000$ weighting used here.
  • Because the budget loss is quadratic, a single trained cascade could in principle be evaluated at multiple target rates $c$ without retraining the hyperparameters.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semi-structured pruning method for graph convolutional networks used in skeleton-based recognition. The method reparametrizes each weight tensor as a Hadamard product with a cascade of three differentiable functions: a band-stop magnitude mask (Eq. 2), a weight-sharing transform that ties mask entries across rows, columns, or blocks (Eq. 3), and a gating mechanism that selects exactly one pruning mode per connection (Eq. 4). A budget loss and a surrogate rank regularizer (Eqs. 5-7) are added to control the pruning rate and to encourage compact tensors. The method is evaluated on the SBU and FPHA benchmarks, comparing structured, unstructured, and semi-structured variants at 90%, 95%, and 98% pruning rates, with the central claim that semi-structured pruning achieves the best accuracy-speedup trade-off.

Significance. If fully supported, the contribution would be valuable: the cascaded parametrization is elegant, couples mask and weight learning, and the Jacobian derivations in Table 1 are a practical strength. The method is tested on two established benchmarks and against several regularization-based pruning baselines. However, the main empirical claim rests on an undefined SpeedUp metric and an unverified compactness mechanism; the current evidence is insufficient to substantiate the central advantage.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, Tables 4 and 5] The SpeedUp column is never defined in the manuscript. No wall-clock time, FLOP count, or algorithmic description of how the speedup is computed is provided, so the reported 16x-2195x values cannot be interpreted or reproduced. Since the central claim is the accuracy-speedup trade-off, please define SpeedUp precisely, state the measurement protocol, and report actual inference times for at least one representative configuration.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (7) and the following paragraph] The paper claims that minimizing the surrogate r[W] reduces the number of non-null rows/columns and that 'actual rank minimization requires reordering dimensions layer-wise' to eliminate fragmentation, but no algorithm, proof, or empirical demonstration is given. Minimizing zero rows/columns does not by itself guarantee that entry-wise survivors form a dense sub-tensor after permutation; scattered survivors would leave fragmentation and invalidate the implied speedups. Please provide the reordering construction or report the actual shapes of the reordered tensors in the experiments.
  3. [Table 4, 90% pruning row] Structured (+ rank optimization) and Semi-structured (+ rank optimization) both achieve 89.23% accuracy on SBU, but structured reports 487x speedup versus 52x for semi-structured. This directly contradicts the claim that semi-structured offers the best accuracy-speedup trade-off in this regime. Please reconcile this counterexample or qualify the claim to specify in which regimes the trade-off is actually better.
  4. [Section 5, text and Table 4] The text states that unstructured pruning yields no actual speedup because the architecture remains unchanged, yet Table 4 reports SpeedUp values of 16x, 16x, and 106x for 'Unstructured (+ rank optimization)' at 90%, 95%, and 98% pruning. This is internally inconsistent and suggests that the meaning of SpeedUp changes depending on the condition. Please clarify what 'rank optimization' does for unstructured pruning and why speedup appears only when it is used.
  5. [Section 5, experimental setup] All reported accuracies and speedups are single-run point estimates with no error bars or multiple seeds. Given the many hyperparameters (lambda, beta, sigma, gamma) and the annealing schedules, the observed differences (e.g., 92.30 vs 93.84 on SBU at 95% pruning) may not be significant. Please provide means and standard deviations over at least three independent runs for the main comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The paper uses both 'parametrization' and 'parameterization' inconsistently; please unify the spelling.
  2. [Eq. (5) and Eq. (1)] The budget loss in Eq. (5) sums over L-1 layers while the parametrization in Eq. (1) is defined for all L layers; please clarify whether the last layer is intentionally excluded from pruning.
  3. [Figure 1 and its caption] The figure is hard to read in the provided version, and the caption's reference to a triangle as the 'not gate' operator is unclear; please redraw the figure and expand the caption.
  4. [References] Many references to the author's own prior work appear in places where they are not directly relevant to the immediate claim (e.g., [4], [8], [10], [13]); consider trimming or contextualizing these citations.
  5. [Related work, Section 2] The discussion does not mention existing semi-structured or structured-sparsity paradigms (e.g., 2:4 structured sparsity, block sparsity), which would help position the novelty of the proposed semi-structured approach.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported accuracy–speedup trade-off is an empirical ablation, not a prediction derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Section 5, Tables 4–5) is an empirical comparison: after training with the budget and surrogate-rank losses, semi-structured pruning is reported to retain accuracy close to unstructured pruning while giving larger speedups. These numbers are measurements of trained models, not outputs of a fitted parameter or a quantity that is defined as the input. The surrogate rank term r[W] in Eq. 7 is a regularizer chosen to encourage zero rows/columns, and its effect is then ablated by comparing runs with and without 'rank optimization'; this is a design choice, not a hidden reuse of the measured speedup. The budget term in Eq. 6 directly imposes a target pruning rate c, but the accuracy obtained at that rate is an empirical outcome, and the comparison against structured, unstructured, and regularization-based alternatives is a standard ablation. The paper contains many self-citations in related work and in the GCN background, but the proposed parametrization (Eqs. 1–4) is introduced without appealing to those prior results as a load-bearing theorem; no uniqueness claim or forbidden-alternative argument is imported from the author's own papers. The main weakness—the SpeedUp column is never defined and Eq. 7 is not proved to yield compact dense tensors after layer-wise reordering—is a reproducibility/soundness concern, not a circularity: it does not reduce the claimed result to its own inputs. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be quoted and exhibited.

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

The method introduces no new physical entities. It rests on several hand-chosen hyperparameters and three unproved modeling choices: mask binarization at convergence, the rank surrogate, and the gating priority order.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (budget loss weight) = 1000
    Set by hand to enforce the targeted pruning rate; no sensitivity study reported (Section 4.3).
  • beta (structureness weight) = 0.1
    Controls the balance between structured and unstructured pruning; chosen by hand (Section 4.3).
  • sigma (band-stop temperature) = not specified
    Controls crispness of the soft threshold in Eq. 2; annealing schedule not reported.
  • gamma (rank surrogate temperature) = not specified
    Controls the approximation in Eq. 7; annealing schedule not reported.
  • target pruning rate c = 0.90 / 0.95 / 0.98
    Each experimental configuration fixes a target rate; all reported trade-offs depend on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The spatial GCN update f(sum_k A_k U^T W_k) is an appropriate model for skeleton recognition.
    Used throughout Section 3 and the experiments; standard in prior work, not justified anew.
  • ad hoc to paper Annealed soft-thresholding in Eq. 2 converges to crisp binary masks so that the gating in Eq. 4 selects exactly one pruning mode per connection.
    The paper relies on this behavior in Section 4.1 but provides no convergence analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The surrogate rank function in Eq. 7 minimizes the number of non-null rows/columns and thereby compacts tensors.
    Asserted in Section 4.2; no proof that it is an upper bound for signed weights.
  • ad hoc to paper The priority order block > column > row > entry in Eq. 4 is beneficial for the accuracy-speedup trade-off.
    Design choice in Section 4.1; no ablation varying the priority order.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing Semi-Structured Pruning of Graph Convolutional Networks for Skeleton-based Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X3WWZRGS

@misc{pith2026241211813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing Semi-Structured Pruning of Graph Convolutional Networks for Skeleton-based Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X3WWZRGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11813}
}
read the original abstract

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are nowadays witnessing a major success in solving many pattern recognition tasks including skeleton-based classification. The deployment of DNNs on edge-devices, endowed with limited time and memory resources, requires designing lightweight and efficient variants of these networks. Pruning is one of the lightweight network design techniques that operate by removing unnecessary network parts, in a structured or an unstructured manner, including individual weights, neurons or even entire channels. Nonetheless, structured and unstructured pruning methods, when applied separately, may either be inefficient or ineffective. In this paper, we devise a novel semi-structured method that discards the downsides of structured and unstructured pruning while gathering their upsides to some extent. The proposed solution is based on a differentiable cascaded parametrization which combines (i) a band-stop mechanism that prunes weights depending on their magnitudes, (ii) a weight-sharing parametrization that prunes connections either individually or group-wise, and (iii) a gating mechanism which arbitrates between different group-wise and entry-wise pruning. All these cascaded parametrizations are built upon a common latent tensor which is trained end-to-end by minimizing a classification loss and a surrogate tensor rank regularizer. Extensive experiments, conducted on the challenging tasks of action and hand-gesture recognition, show the clear advantage of our proposed semi-structured pruning approach against both structured and unstructured pruning, when taken separately, as well as the related work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This figure shows the three stages of the cascaded parametrization including (i) band-stop, (ii) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure shows a crop of the mask tensor obtained after the gating parametrization when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60(6):84–90, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    H. Sahbi. Phase-field models for lightweight graph convolutional networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4643–4649, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Transductive kernel map learning and its application to image annotation

    P. Vo and H. Sahbi. "Transductive kernel map learning and its application to image annotation." BMVC. 2012

    2012

  5. [5]

    Adaptive graph convolutional neural networks

    Ruoyu Li, Sheng Wang, Feiyun Zhu, and Junzhou Huang. Adaptive graph convolutional neural networks. InProceedings of the AAAI, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Directedacyclicgraphkernelsforactionrecognition

    L.WangandH.Sahbi. Directedacyclicgraphkernelsforactionrecognition. In ProceedingsoftheIEEEInternationalConference on Computer Vision, pages 3168–3175, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    A new model for learning in graph domains

    Marco Gori, Gabriele Monfardini, and Franco Scarselli. A new model for learning in graph domains. InIJCNN, volume 2, pages 729–734. IEEE, 2005

    2005

  8. [8]

    Robust face recognition using dynamic space warping

    H. Sahbi and N. Boujemaa. "Robust face recognition using dynamic space warping." International Workshop on Biometric Authentication. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2002

    2002

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    Understanding attention and generalization in graph neural networks

    Boris Knyazev, Graham W Taylor, and Mohamed Amer. Understanding attention and generalization in graph neural networks. Advances in NIPS, 32, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Learning attribute representations for remote sensing ship category classification

    Q. Oliveau and H. Sahbi. "Learning attribute representations for remote sensing ship category classification." IEEE JSTARS 10.6 (2017): 2830-2840

    2017

  3. [11]

    Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant

    Seyed Iman Mirzadeh, Mehrdad Farajtabar, Ang Li, Nir Levine, Akihiro Matsukawa, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant. InProceedings of the AAAI, volume 34, pages 5191–5198, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    learning-compression

    Miguel A Carreira-Perpinán and Yerlan Idelbayev. “learning-compression” algorithms for neural net pruning. InProceedings of the IEEE CVPR, pages 8532–8541, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Relevance feedback for satellite image change detection

    H. Sahbi. "Relevance feedback for satellite image change detection." IEEE ICASSP, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Morphnet: Fast & simple resource-constrained structure learning of deep networks

    Ariel Gordon, Elad Eban, Ofir Nachum, Bo Chen, Hao Wu, Tien-Ju Yang, and Edward Choi. Morphnet: Fast & simple resource-constrained structure learning of deep networks. InProceedings of the IEEE CVPR, pages 1586–1595, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Sparse artificial neural networks using a novel smoothed lasso penalization

    Basava Naga Girish Koneru and Vinita Vasudevan. Sparse artificial neural networks using a novel smoothed lasso penalization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, 66(5):848–852, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Entropy-constrained training of deep neural networks

    Simon Wiedemann, Arturo Marban, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Wojciech Samek. Entropy-constrained training of deep neural networks. InIJCNN, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Sahbi, J-Y

    H. Sahbi, J-Y. Audibert and R. Keriven. Context-dependent kernels for object classification.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 33(4):699–708, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Learning structured sparsity in deep neural networks

    Wei Wen, Chunpeng Wu, Yandan Wang, Yiran Chen, and Hai Li. Learning structured sparsity in deep neural networks. Advances in NIPS, 29, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Learning efficient convolutional networks through network slimming

    Zhuang Liu, Jianguo Li, Zhiqiang Shen, Gao Huang, Shoumeng Yan, and Changshui Zhang. Learning efficient convolutional networks through network slimming. InProceedings of the IEEE ICCV, pages 2736–2744, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Constrained optical flow for aerial image change detection

    N. Bourdis, D. Marraud and H. Sahbi. "Constrained optical flow for aerial image change detection." in IEEE IGARSS, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Learning sparse neural networks throughl_0 regularization

    Christos Louizos, Max Welling, and Diederik P Kingma. Learning sparse neural networks throughl_0 regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01312, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Searching for mobilenetv3

    Andrew Howard, Mark Sandler, Grace Chu, Liang-Chieh Chen, Bo Chen, Mingxing Tan, Weijun Wang, Yukun Zhu, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, et al. Searching for mobilenetv3. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF ICCV, pages 1314–1324, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Wang and H

    L. Wang and H. Sahbi. Bags-of-daglets for action recognition. InIEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 1550–1554. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Convolutional two-stream network fusion for video action recognition

    Christoph Feichtenhofer, Axel Pinz, and Andrew Zisserman. Convolutional two-stream network fusion for video action recognition. InIEEE CVPR, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Transition forests: Learning discriminative temporal transitions for action recognition and detection

    Guillermo Garcia-Hernando and Tae-Kyun Kim. Transition forests: Learning discriminative temporal transitions for action recognition and detection. InProceedings of the IEEE CVPR, pages 432–440, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Bourdis, D

    N. Bourdis, D. Marraud, and H. Sahbi, Spatio-temporal interaction for aerial video change detection, in IGARSS, 2012, pp. 2253–2256

    2012

  19. [27]

    First-person hand action benchmark with rgb-d videos and 3d hand pose annotations

    Guillermo Garcia-Hernando, Shanxin Yuan, Seungryul Baek, and Tae-Kyun Kim. First-person hand action benchmark with rgb-d videos and 3d hand pose annotations. InProceedings of the IEEE CVPR, pages 409–419, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Mazari and H

    A. Mazari and H. Sahbi. Deep temporal pyramid design for action recognition. InIEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 2077–2081. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Mazari and H

    A. Mazari and H. Sahbi. Mlgcn: Multi-laplacian graph convolutional networks for human action recognition. InThe British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.00149, 2015

    Song Han, Huizi Mao, and William J Dally. Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.00149, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network

    Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. Learning both weights and connections for efficient neural network. Advances in NIPS, 28, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    Nonlinear cross-view sample enrichment for action recognition

    L. Wang and H. Sahbi. "Nonlinear cross-view sample enrichment for action recognition." European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, Cham, 2014. 12

    2014

  25. [33]

    Optimal brain damage.Advances in NIPS, 2, 1989

    Yann LeCun, John Denker, and Sara Solla. Optimal brain damage.Advances in NIPS, 2, 1989

    1989

  26. [34]

    Second order derivatives for network pruning: Optimal brain surgeon.Advances in NIPS, 5, 1992

    Babak Hassibi and David Stork. Second order derivatives for network pruning: Optimal brain surgeon.Advances in NIPS, 5, 1992

    1992

  27. [35]

    Coarse-to-fine deep kernel networks

    H. Sahbi. "Coarse-to-fine deep kernel networks." IEEE ICCV-W, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Jointly learning heterogeneous features for rgb-d activity recognition

    Jian-Fang Hu, Wei-Shi Zheng, Jianhuang Lai, and Jianguo Zhang. Jointly learning heterogeneous features for rgb-d activity recognition. InCVPR, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Spatio-temporal graph convolution for skeleton based action recognition

    Chaolong Li, Zhen Cui, Wenming Zheng, Chunyan Xu, and Jian Yang. Spatio-temporal graph convolution for skeleton based action recognition. InAAAI, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Global co-occurrence feature learning and active coordinate system conversion for skeleton-based action recognition

    Sheng Li, Tingting Jiang, Tiejun Huang, and Yonghong Tian. Global co-occurrence feature learning and active coordinate system conversion for skeleton-based action recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF WACV, pages 586–594, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Laplacian deep kernel learning for image annotation

    M. Jiu and H. Sahbi. "Laplacian deep kernel learning for image annotation." IEEE ICASSP, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Graph cnns with motif and variable temporal block for skeleton-based action recognition

    Yu-Hui Wen, Lin Gao, Hongbo Fu, Fang-Lue Zhang, and Shihong Xia. Graph cnns with motif and variable temporal block for skeleton-based action recognition. InProceedings of the AAAI, volume 33, pages 8989–8996, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Topologically-consistentmagnitudepruningforverylightweightgraphconvolutionalnetworks

    H.Sahbi. Topologically-consistentmagnitudepruningforverylightweightgraphconvolutionalnetworks. In IEEEInternational Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 3495–3499. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition

    Sijie Yan, Yuanjun Xiong, and Dahua Lin. Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. In AAAI, vol 32, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    A riemannian network for spd matrix learning

    Zhiwu Huang and Luc Van Gool. A riemannian network for spd matrix learning. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 31, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Sahbi and F

    H. Sahbi and F. Fleuret. Scale-invariance of support vector machines based on the triangular kernel. Diss. INRIA, 2002

    2002

  37. [45]

    Jiu and H

    M. Jiu and H. Sahbi. Deep representation design from deep kernel networks.Pattern Recognition, 88:447–457, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    A novel geometric framework on gram matrix trajectories for human behavior understanding.IEEE TPAMI, 42(1):1–14, 2018

    Anis Kacem, Mohamed Daoudi, Boulbaba Ben Amor, Stefano Berretti, and Juan Carlos Alvarez-Paiva. A novel geometric framework on gram matrix trajectories for human behavior understanding.IEEE TPAMI, 42(1):1–14, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Camera pose estimation using visual servoing for aerial video change detection

    N. Bourdis, D. Marraud and H. Sahbi. "Camera pose estimation using visual servoing for aerial video change detection." IEEE IGARSS 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    H. Sahbi. Coarse-to-fine support vector machines for hierarchical face detection. Diss. PhD thesis, Versailles University, 2003

    2003

  41. [49]

    Han: An efficient hierarchical self-attention network for skeleton-based gesture recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13391, 2021

    Jianbo Liu, Ying Wang, Shiming Xiang, and Chunhong Pan. Han: An efficient hierarchical self-attention network for skeleton-based gesture recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13391, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Building deep networks on grassmann manifolds

    Zhiwu Huang, Jiqing Wu, and Luc Van Gool. Building deep networks on grassmann manifolds. InProceedings of the AAAI, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    Decoupled representation learning for skeleton-based gesture recognition

    Jianbo Liu, Yongcheng Liu, Ying Wang, Veronique Prinet, Shiming Xiang, and Chunhong Pan. Decoupled representation learning for skeleton-based gesture recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF CVPR, pages 5751–5760, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    H. Sahbi. Kernel-based graph convolutional networks. In25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 4887–4894. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Structured pruning of neural networks with budget-aware regularization

    Carl Lemaire, Andrew Achkar, and Pierre-Marc Jodoin. Structured pruning of neural networks with budget-aware regularization. InCVPR, pages 9108–9116, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Bags-of-daglets for action recognition

    L. Wang and H. Sahbi. "Bags-of-daglets for action recognition." 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    Pruning filters for efficient convnets.arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.08710, 2016

    Hao Li, Asim Kadav, Igor Durdanovic, Hanan Samet, and Hans Peter Graf. Pruning filters for efficient convnets.arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.08710, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    H. Sahbi. Learning connectivity with graph convolutional networks. In25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 9996–10003. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    Hierarchical recurrent neural network for skeleton based action recognition

    Yong Du, Wei Wang, and Liang Wang. Hierarchical recurrent neural network for skeleton based action recognition. InCVPR, pages 1110–1118, 2015

    2015

  51. [59]

    Spatio-temporal lstm with trust gates for 3d human action recognition

    Jun Liu, Amir Shahroudy, Dong Xu, and Gang Wang. Spatio-temporal lstm with trust gates for 3d human action recognition. In ECCV 2016

    2016

  52. [60]

    Interactive satellite image change detection with context-aware canonical correlation analysis

    H. Sahbi. "Interactive satellite image change detection with context-aware canonical correlation analysis." IEEE GRSL, (14)5, 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    Skeleton-based human action recognition with global context-aware attention lstm networks.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(4):1586–1599, 2017

    Jun Liu, Gang Wang, Ling-Yu Duan, Kamila Abdiyeva, and Alex C Kot. Skeleton-based human action recognition with global context-aware attention lstm networks.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 27(4):1586–1599, 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    View adaptive recurrent neural networks for high performance human action recognition from skeleton data

    Pengfei Zhang, Cuiling Lan, Junliang Xing, Wenjun Zeng, Jianru Xue, and Nanning Zheng. View adaptive recurrent neural networks for high performance human action recognition from skeleton data. InICCV, pages 2117–2126, 2017

    2017

  55. [63]

    H. Sahbi. Kernel pca for similarity invariant shape recognition.Neurocomputing, 70(16-18):3034–3045, 2007

    2007

  56. [64]

    Co-occurrence feature learning for skeleton based action recognition using regularized deep lstm networks

    Wentao Zhu, Cuiling Lan, Junliang Xing, Wenjun Zeng, Yanghao Li, Li Shen, and Xiaohui Xie. Co-occurrence feature learning for skeleton based action recognition using regularized deep lstm networks. InAAAI, volume 30, 2016

    2016

  57. [65]

    Deepgru: Deep gesture recognition utility

    Mehran Maghoumi and Joseph J LaViola. Deepgru: Deep gesture recognition utility. InISVC 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    Rgb-d-based human motion recognition with deep learning: A survey.CVIU, 2018

    Pichao Wang, Wanqing Li, Philip Ogunbona, Jun Wan, and Sergio Escalera. Rgb-d-based human motion recognition with deep learning: A survey.CVIU, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    H. Sahbi. Lightweight connectivity in graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based recognition. InIEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), pages 2329–2333. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  60. [68]

    Linear-time online action detection from 3d skeletal data using bags of gesturelets

    Moustafa Meshry, Mohamed E Hussein, and Marwan Torki. Linear-time online action detection from 3d skeletal data using bags of gesturelets. In2016 IEEE WACV, pages 1–9. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  61. [69]

    Eshed Ohn-Bar and Mohan Manubhai Trivedi. Hand gesture recognition in real time for automotive interfaces: A multimodal vision-based approach and evaluations.IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, 15(6):2368–2377, 2014. 13

    2014

  62. [70]

    Applying interest operators in semi-fragile video watermarking

    S. Thiemert, H. Sahbi, and M. Steinebach. "Applying interest operators in semi-fragile video watermarking." Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents VII. Vol. 5681. SPIE, 2005

    2005

  63. [71]

    Dropneuron: Simplifying the structure of deep neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.07326, 2016

    Wei Pan, Hao Dong, and Yike Guo. Dropneuron: Simplifying the structure of deep neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.07326, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Using entropy for image and video authentication watermarks

    S. Thiemert, H. Sahbi, and M. Steinebach. "Using entropy for image and video authentication watermarks." Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents VIII. Vol. 6072. SPIE, 2006

    2006

  65. [73]

    An end-to-end spatio-temporal attention model for human action recognition from skeleton data

    Sijie Song, Cuiling Lan, Junliang Xing, Wenjun Zeng, and Jiaying Liu. An end-to-end spatio-temporal attention model for human action recognition from skeleton data. InAAAI, volume 31, 2017

    2017

  66. [74]

    Human action recognition by representing 3d skeletons as points in a lie group

    Raviteja Vemulapalli, Felipe Arrate, and Rama Chellappa. Human action recognition by representing 3d skeletons as points in a lie group. InCVPR, 2014

    2014

  67. [75]

    From coarse to fine skin and face detection

    H. Sahbi and N. Boujemaa. "From coarse to fine skin and face detection." Proceedings of the eighth ACM international conference on Multimedia. 2000

    2000

  68. [76]

    Regularization of neural networks using dropconnect

    Li Wan, Matthew Zeiler, Sixin Zhang, Yann Le Cun, and Rob Fergus. Regularization of neural networks using dropconnect. In ICML, pages 1058–1066. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  69. [77]

    Effective 3d action recognition using eigenjoints.Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 25(1):2–11, 2014

    Xiaodong Yang and YingLi Tian. Effective 3d action recognition using eigenjoints.Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 25(1):2–11, 2014

    2014

  70. [78]

    Yuan, G-S

    F. Yuan, G-S. Xia, H. Sahbi, and V. Prinet. Mid-level features and spatio-temporal context for activity recognition.Pattern Recognition, 45(12):4182–4191, 2012

    2012

  71. [79]

    Interactive body part contrast mining for human interaction recognition

    Yanli Ji, Guo Ye, and Hong Cheng. Interactive body part contrast mining for human interaction recognition. InICMEW, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  72. [80]

    Category-blind human action recognition: A practical recognition system

    Wenbo Li, Longyin Wen, Mooi Choo Chuah, and Siwei Lyu. Category-blind human action recognition: A practical recognition system. InIEEE ICCV, 2015

    2015

  73. [81]

    Sahbi and F

    H. Sahbi and F. Fleuret. Kernel methods and scale invariance using the triangular kernel. Technical report, INRIA, 2004

    2004

  74. [82]

    Hon4d: Histogram of oriented 4d normals for activity recognition from depth sequences

    Omar Oreifej and Zicheng Liu. Hon4d: Histogram of oriented 4d normals for activity recognition from depth sequences. In CVPR, pages 716–723, 2013

    2013

  75. [83]

    3d action recognition from novel viewpoints

    Hossein Rahmani and Ajmal Mian. 3d action recognition from novel viewpoints. InCVPR, pages 1506–1515, 2016

    2016

  76. [84]

    Sahbi and D

    H. Sahbi and D. Geman. A hierarchy of support vector machines for pattern detection.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7(10), 2006

    2006

  77. [85]

    Two-person interaction detection using body-pose features and multiple instance learning

    Kiwon Yun, Jean Honorio, Debaleena Chattopadhyay, Tamara L Berg, and Dimitris Samaras. Two-person interaction detection using body-pose features and multiple instance learning. In CVPRW, pages 28–35. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  78. [86]

    Jiu and H

    M. Jiu and H. Sahbi. Nonlinear deep kernel learning for image annotation.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 26(4):1820–1832, 2017

    2017

  79. [87]

    The moving pose: An efficient 3d kinematics descriptor for low-latency action recognition and detection

    Mihai Zanfir, Marius Leordeanu, and Cristian Sminchisescu. The moving pose: An efficient 3d kinematics descriptor for low-latency action recognition and detection. InICCV, pages 2752–2759, 2013

    2013

  80. [88]

    Graph-cut transducers for relevance feedback in content based image retrieval

    H. Sahbi, Jean-Yves Audibert, and Renaud Keriven. "Graph-cut transducers for relevance feedback in content based image retrieval." 2007 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE, 2007

    2007

  81. [89]

    Efficient temporal sequence comparison and classification using gram matrix embeddings on a riemannian manifold

    Xikang Zhang, Yin Wang, Mengran Gou, Mario Sznaier, and Octavia Camps. Efficient temporal sequence comparison and classification using gram matrix embeddings on a riemannian manifold. InCVPR, pages 4498–4507, 2016

    2016

  82. [90]

    Context-dependent kernel design for object matching and recognition

    H. Sahbi, Jean-Yves Audibert, Jaonary Rabarisoa, and Renaud Keriven. "Context-dependent kernel design for object matching and recognition." In 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1-8. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  83. [91]

    Convolutional neural networks and long short-term memory for skeleton-based human activity and hand gesture recognition.Pattern Recognition, 76:80–94, 2018

    Juan C Nunez, Raul Cabido, Juan J Pantrigo, Antonio S Montemayor, and Jose F Velez. Convolutional neural networks and long short-term memory for skeleton-based human activity and hand gesture recognition.Pattern Recognition, 76:80–94, 2018

    2018

  84. [92]

    Pruning-as-search: Efficient neural architecture search via channel pruning and structural reparameterization

    LI, Yanyu, ZHAO, Pu, YUAN, Geng, et al. Pruning-as-search: Efficient neural architecture search via channel pruning and structural reparameterization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01198, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  85. [93]

    H. Sahbi. Learning laplacians in chebyshev graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 2064-2075)

  86. [94]

    TELECOM ParisTech at ImageClefphoto 2008: Bi-Modal Text and Image Retrieval with Diversity Enhancement

    M. Ferecatu and H. Sahbi. "TELECOM ParisTech at ImageClefphoto 2008: Bi-Modal Text and Image Retrieval with Diversity Enhancement." CLEF (Working Notes). 2008

    2008

  87. [95]

    CNRS-TELECOM ParisTech at ImageCLEF 2013 Scalable Concept Image Annotation Task: Winning Annotations with Context Dependent SVMs

    H. Sahbi. "CNRS-TELECOM ParisTech at ImageCLEF 2013 Scalable Concept Image Annotation Task: Winning Annotations with Context Dependent SVMs." CLEF (Working Notes). 2013

    2013

  88. [96]

    Coarse-to-fine support vector classifiers for face detection

    H. Sahbi and N. Boujemaa. "Coarse-to-fine support vector classifiers for face detection." Object recognition supported by user interaction for service robots. Vol. 3. IEEE, 2002

    2002

  89. [97]

    Visual content extraction for automatic semantic annotation of video news

    N. Boujemaa, F. Fleuret, V. Gouet, and H. Sahbi. "Visual content extraction for automatic semantic annotation of video news." In the proceedings of the SPIE Conference, San Jose, CA, vol. 6. 2004

    2004

  90. [98]

    Misalignment resilient cca for interactive satellite image change detection

    H. Sahbi. "Misalignment resilient cca for interactive satellite image change detection." 2016 23rd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). IEEE, 2016

    2016

  91. [99]

    From 2D silhouettes to 3D object retrieval: contributions and benchmarking

    T. Napoléon and H. Sahbi. "From 2D silhouettes to 3D object retrieval: contributions and benchmarking." EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing 2010 (2010): 1-17

    2010

  92. [100]

    Semi supervised deep kernel design for image annotation

    M. Jiu and H. Sahbi. "Semi supervised deep kernel design for image annotation." 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2015

    2015

  93. [101]

    Deep kernel map networks for image annotation

    M. Jiu and H. Sahbi. "Deep kernel map networks for image annotation." 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2016

    2016

  94. [102]

    Multi-view object matching and tracking using canonical correlation analysis

    M. Ferecatu and H. Sahbi. "Multi-view object matching and tracking using canonical correlation analysis." 2009 16th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2009

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.