Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

WiFi CSI Based Temporal Activity Detection via Dual Pyramid Network

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A dual-pyramid network that splits WiFi channel state information into high- and low-frequency views, adds learning-free fluctuation features, and fuses them with cross-attention claims to set a new bar for detecting daily activities in…

desk verdict New WiFi-CSI temporal activity detection benchmark with a plausible dual-pyramid design and supportive ablations, but the SOTA claim is unverifiable as reported due to an underspecified baseline adapter, an unreleased dataset, and a broken code link. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16233 v2 pith:K6H24QFC submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGcs.NI

Zhendong Liu , Le Zhang , Bing Li , Yingjie Zhou , Zhenghua Chen , Ce Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGcs.NI
keywords WiFiCSItemporalactivitydetectiondualpyramidnetworkfrequencydecompositionSignedMask-Attentionlocalizationwirelesssensing
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

WiFi signals change when people move, but turning those changes into a list of 'who did what, when' in a continuous recording is harder than classifying pre-cut clips. This paper argues that the two sub-problems—where an activity starts and ends, and which activity it is—are best served by different frequency bands: high-frequency signal components mark boundaries, low-frequency components carry category identity. The authors build DPWiT, a dual-pyramid network that learns those two frequency views separately, adds a learning-free encoder for local signal fluctuations, and fuses the two feature pyramids with cross-attention. On a new dataset of 553 untrimmed WiFi recordings containing 2,114 activity instances from seven daily activities, the method reports an average mAP of 74.5% across tIoU thresholds 0.3–0.7, versus 58.0% for the strongest adapted vision baseline. The dataset itself is another contribution, since no public WiFi temporal activity detection benchmark existed.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Dual Pyramid Temporal Context Modeling (DPTCM) module. It contains a Temporal Signal Semantic Encoder (TSSE), which splits learning into a transformer-based branch for low-frequency semantic information and a Conv-Pool branch for high-frequency boundary details, fused by ContraNorm; a Local Sensitive Response Encoder (LSRE), which slides a window across the temporal axis and computes max-minus-min fluctuations with no learned parameters; and a Cross-attention Pyramid Fusion that bidirectionally aligns and merges the two pyramids at each scale. This machinery makes the network explicitly model two complementary views of the signal at multiple temporal scales, so that the localization and classification sub-tasks each get the frequency content that the paper argues they need.

What would settle it

Run the released code with each baseline using its original backbone instead of the shared DPWiT encoder, or evaluate on a multi-room, multi-occupant WiFi CSI dataset; if the 16.5-point average-mAP gap over DyFADet shrinks substantially or reverses, the claim that DPWiT's design is responsible for the improvement would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that temporal activity detection in WiFi CSI is not served well by treating the signal as a generic sequence; a frequency-aware decomposition is the key inductive bias. The authors show preliminary evidence that transformer-style global attention is good at classifying activities and convolutional-pooling branches are better at localizing boundaries, and that this split is confirmed by feeding low- and high-frequency filtered signals separately. Their network, DPWiT, operationalizes this by learning two feature pyramids—a Temporal Signal Semantic Encoder with a transformer branch (using a new Signed Mask-Attention) and a Conv-Pool branch, fused by ContraNorm, and a Local Sensitive Response Encoder that computes max-minus-min in sliding windows without learned parameters. A cross-attention pyramid fusion then combines the two pyramids level by level. With this design and a new 553-sample, 2,114-instance dataset, the paper reports state-of-the-art results on the task, with the largest measured gain coming from the frequency decomposition and the Signed Mask-Attention.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the comparison is fair and the data are representative: all baselines were given the same encoder that is part of DPWiT, and the single-room, three-volunteer dataset is treated as an adequate testbed for the reported 74.5 mAP.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, WiFi-only sensors can produce activity timelines (start, end, category) for long, untrimmed monitoring without cameras or wearables, which matters for privacy-sensitive care settings.
  • The frequency-decomposition finding gives a concrete design rule: use high-frequency features for boundary regression and low-frequency features for classification in temporal detection of non-visual signals.
  • The learning-free LSRE shows that a cheap handcrafted fluctuation feature can carry much of the localization signal, reducing compute (44.1 GFLOPs vs 304.0 for DyFADet) and the risk of overfitting.
  • The new dataset and benchmark let future WiFi temporal activity detection work compare against a common set of seven activities, 2,114 instances, and the tIoU 0.3–0.7 protocol.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the authors' frequency-split hypothesis generalizes, the same high/low frequency decomposition may transfer to other motion-sensing modalities such as mmWave radar or UWB, whose signals also encode movement as multipath variation.
  • The Signed Mask-Attention and the max-min fluctuation encoder are not specific to WiFi; they could be applied to other long, noisy 1D time-series detection tasks, such as seismic event detection or ECG monitoring.
  • The dataset's single-room, three-volunteer collection is the main unverified boundary; a multi-environment, multi-person benchmark would test whether the 74.5 mAP margin survives domain shift.
  • Because the authors replace all baselines' backbones with their own encoder, an independent re-baselining with the original backbones would clarify whether the improvement comes from the encoder itself or from the dual-pyramid head.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DPWiT, a dual-pyramid network for temporal activity detection (TAD) in untrimmed WiFi CSI streams. The architecture uses a Temporal Signal Semantic Encoder (TSSE) with a Signed Mask-Attention mechanism and a Conv-Pool branch, a learning-free Local Sensitive Response Encoder (LSRE), and a cross-attention pyramid fusion. The authors also present a self-collected dataset of 553 WiFi CSI samples with 2,114 annotated activity segments over seven classes. They report that DPWiT achieves 74.5 mAPavg versus 58.0 for the strongest adapted vision baseline (DyFADet) while using fewer GFLOPs. Ablations support the main design choices.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the paper makes a useful contribution: it formulates WiFi-based TAD as a distinct task, provides a new dataset for it, and proposes an efficient architecture whose frequency-decomposition hypothesis is motivated by preliminary experiments. The ablations in Table 4 give plausible evidence for the value of the main components. However, the headline state-of-the-art claim currently rests on an underspecified baseline adaptation protocol, a single unreleased dataset, and no variance estimates; the code URL is malformed and the supplementary material is not available. These issues prevent an independent verification of the empirical contribution, so the significance of the paper is substantially reduced as submitted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental Setups] The baseline comparison protocol is underspecified. The sentence 'To ensure fair comparison, we modified their pipelines to fit signal data and replaced their backbones with the same encoder used in our network' does not state which modules constitute the shared 'encoder.' If the shared encoder is only the three CGR projection layers, the comparison is reasonable; if it includes the full Dual Pyramid Temporal Context Modeling module (TSSE, LSRE, and Cross-attention Pyramid Fusion), then every baseline already uses DPWiT's feature extractor and Table 3 compares only prediction heads. The code URL 'https://github.com/A VC2-UESTC/WiFiTAD' contains a space and is not resolvable, so the protocol cannot be audited. Please define precisely which parts of DPWiT are shared with the baselines and provide either working code or a detailed layer-by-layer adapter description.
  2. [Dataset and Main Results] The evaluation has no repeated-run statistics. The whole comparison in Table 3 is performed on one self-collected dataset from a single room with three volunteers, split once with a 7:3 ratio, and no standard deviations or multiple seeds are reported. The gap of 74.5 versus 58.0 mAPavg over DyFADet could be influenced by split luck or run-to-run noise, and the same concern applies to the ablation results in Table 4. The text says 'Cross-person evaluation is provided in the supplementary material,' but no supplementary material is included in this submission. Please report means and standard deviations over multiple runs/splits, and make the dataset, the exact split, and the evaluation code available or provide results on a public benchmark.
  3. [Visual Analyze (Fig. 3)] Figure 3 internally contradicts the dataset definition. The figure repeatedly labels the activity 'bend' in the ground-truth interval and in predictions (e.g., 'bend (0.97)', 'bend (0.51)'), but Table 2 lists only walk, run, jump, wave, fall, sit, and stand, and 'bend' appears nowhere in the dataset statistics. This inconsistency undermines the qualitative evidence in the Visual Analyze paragraph. Please regenerate the figure with the correct class vocabulary or explicitly clarify whether 'bend' is part of the dataset and why it is absent from Table 2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Method, Eq. (2)] The notation in Eq. (2) is ambiguous: the 1-norm of Q+K is not defined (row-wise versus element-wise), and the shape of W_H is said to be 'the same dimensions as Q,' which is inconsistent with the transpose W_H^T. Please clarify the exact tensor operations.
  2. [Implementation Details] The implementation details state that the model uses '8 TSSE and LSRE backbones as feature encoders' and that output features from the last 4 layers are used for detection, but the architecture figure and Eq. (9) describe an unspecified number L of pyramid levels. Please state explicitly that L=8 and which levels are used.
  3. [Table 3] The rows 'Baseline-ResNet1d' and 'Baseline-THAT' are not tied to the description of the two sliding-window baseline methods in Experimental Setups. Please clarify whether these are the sliding-window HAR classifiers and why they are included in the mAP comparison.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'Huam Activity Analysis' in the Related Work heading, 'sematic' in Figure 2, 'TarTR' in Figure 3, 'form different methods' in the Figure 3 caption, 'ration' in Eq. (12), and 'Institude' in the author affiliation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SOTA claim is an empirical result on a held-out test split, and no equation or fitted parameter reduces by construction to the paper's own input.

full rationale

This is an empirical engineering paper, not a derivation. The headline result (Table 3, 74.5 mAPavg vs. 58.0 for DyFADet) is computed by training DPWiT on a 70% split and evaluating mAP on a held-out 30% test split of the authors' collected WiFi CSI dataset, using the standard tIoU/mAP protocol. The training loss is focal loss plus DIoU loss, both credited to external prior work (Lin et al. 2017; Zheng et al. 2020) and following the ActionFormer formulation (Zhang, Wu, and Li 2022). The frequency hypothesis in 'Some Preliminary Results' is tested with controlled transformer/convolutional networks and FFT/IFFT frequency-split inputs; it motivates the architecture but does not define the final evaluation metric. The ablation study likewise compares alternative designs on held-out data, so the reported numbers are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The paper does cite prior work by overlapping authors (Li et al. 2021a; Meng et al. 2023; Li et al. 2023), but these citations are used as related-work context or as a frequency-perspective motivation, not as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or as the evidence for the SOTA claim. The sentence 'we modified their pipelines to fit signal data and replaced their backbones with the same encoder used in our network' is a legitimate fairness and reproducibility concern, because it is unclear what fraction of DPWiT is shared with baselines and the code link is malformed; however, that is a protocol/auditability issue, not circularity, since the comparison does not reduce to the paper's own input by construction. The unreleased single-room, three-volunteer dataset also limits generalization claims but is not a circularity. Overall, no specific equation or prediction can be shown to be equivalent to its inputs by construction, so the paper receives a low circularity score; the slight nonzero score reflects only the presence of minor self-citations that do not carry the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are standard deep-learning hyperparameters plus the ad hoc frequency cutoff in the motivational study. The load-bearing assumptions are the sensing assumption, the frequency-decomposition hypothesis, and the fairness of the baseline comparison; all are empirically motivated but not independently verified.

free parameters (7)
  • loss weight lambda = 10
    Hyperparameter modulating classification and localization losses, chosen by hand (Section 'Training and Inference').
  • ContraNorm scale tau = 0.1
    Scale in ContraNorm fusion, set by hand (Section 'Implementation Details').
  • focal loss confidence beta = 0.9
    Confidence threshold for focal loss, set by hand (Section 'Implementation Details').
  • Soft-NMS sigma = 0.95
    Soft-NMS parameter used at inference, chosen without sensitivity analysis (Section 'Implementation Details').
  • clip length = 4096 timestamps (~41 seconds)
    Input clip length for training and inference, chosen to cover roughly two activities (Section 'Implementation Details').
  • clip stride = 0.5
    Stride for sliding clips over the long signal, hand-picked (Section 'Implementation Details').
  • frequency cutoff at -6dB = data-dependent
    Used in the preliminary frequency-band experiment to split low and high frequency; an ad hoc criterion (Section 'Some Preliminary Results').
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption WiFi CSI amplitude variations contain sufficient information about human activities and their temporal boundaries.
    The entire task rests on this sensing assumption, grounded in prior work (Chen et al. 2018) but not re-derived.
  • domain assumption Low-frequency signal components are more useful for classifying activities, while high-frequency components are more useful for localizing boundaries.
    This is the design thesis of DPWiT, supported only by the authors' preliminary experiments on their own dataset (Section 'Some Preliminary Results', Table 1).
  • domain assumption The baselines remained competitive after replacing their backbones with the encoder used in DPWiT.
    The fairness of the comparison depends on this assumption, but no analysis is provided to show that the replacement did not disadvantage the baselines (Section 'Experimental Setups').

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WiFi CSI Based Temporal Activity Detection via Dual Pyramid Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6H24QFC

@misc{pith2026241216233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WiFi CSI Based Temporal Activity Detection via Dual Pyramid Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6H24QFC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16233}
}
read the original abstract

We address the challenge of WiFi-based temporal activity detection and propose an efficient Dual Pyramid Network that integrates Temporal Signal Semantic Encoders and Local Sensitive Response Encoders. The Temporal Signal Semantic Encoder splits feature learning into high and low-frequency components, using a novel Signed Mask-Attention mechanism to emphasize important areas and downplay unimportant ones, with the features fused using ContraNorm. The Local Sensitive Response Encoder captures fluctuations without learning. These feature pyramids are then combined using a new cross-attention fusion mechanism. We also introduce a dataset with over 2,114 activity segments across 553 WiFi CSI samples, each lasting around 85 seconds. Extensive experiments show our method outperforms challenging baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The variation of ubiquitous wireless signal caused [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our network. Given a raw signal input, we employ 3 CGR layers to project the signal and generate output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prediction Visualizations form different methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alwassel, H.; Caba Heilbron, F.; Escorcia, V.; and Ghanem, B. 2018. Diagnosing Error in Temporal Action Detectors. In The European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Bodla, N.; Singh, B.; Chellappa, R.; and Davis, L. S. 2017. Soft-NMS--improving object detection with one line of code. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 5561--5569

    2017

  3. [3]

    T.; Tr \"o ster, G.; Mill \'a n, J

    Chavarriaga, R.; Sagha, H.; Calatroni, A.; Digumarti, S. T.; Tr \"o ster, G.; Mill \'a n, J. d. R.; and Roggen, D. 2013. The Opportunity challenge: A benchmark database for on-body sensor-based activity recognition. Pattern Recognition Letters, 34(15): 2033--2042

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Chen, G.; Zheng, Y.-D.; Wang, L.; and Lu, T. 2022. DCAN: improving temporal action detection via dual context aggregation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, 248--257

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Chen, Z.; Zhang, L.; Jiang, C.; Cao, Z.; and Cui, W. 2018. WiFi CSI based passive human activity recognition using attention based BLSTM. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 18(11): 2714--2724

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Gu, Y.; Zhang, C.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Ji, Y.; and Li, J. 2019. A Contactless and Fine-Grained Sleep Monitoring System Leveraging WiFi Channel Response. In ICC 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 1--5

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Guo, X.; Wang, Y.; Du, T.; and Wang, Y. 2023. ContraNorm: A Contrastive Learning Perspective on Oversmoothing and Beyond. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770--778

    2016

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Hu, J.; Guo, C.; Zhuang, L.; Wang, B.; Ge, T.; Jiang, Y.; and Li, H. 2022. Estimation of Reliable Proposal Quality for Temporal Action Detection. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM '22, 6685–6695. New York, NY, USA: Association for Comput...

    2022

  2. [10]

    in the wild

    Idrees, H.; Zamir, A. R.; Jiang, Y.-G.; Gorban, A.; Laptev, I.; Sukthankar, R.; and Shah, M. 2017. The thumos challenge on action recognition for videos “in the wild”. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 155: 1--23

    2017

  3. [11]

    Kong, Y.; and Fu, Y. 2022. Human action recognition and prediction: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(5): 1366--1401

    2022

  4. [12]

    Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; and Hinton, G. E. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 25

    2012

  5. [13]

    Li, A.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Y.; and Zhu, C. 2023. Feature modulation transformer: Cross-refinement of global representation via high-frequency prior for image super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 12514--12524

    2023

  6. [14]

    Li, B.; Cui, W.; Wang, W.; Zhang, L.; Chen, Z.; and Wu, M. 2021 a . Two-stream convolution augmented transformer for human activity recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, 286--293

    2021

  7. [15]

    J.; Tang, C.; Piechocki, R

    Li, W.; Bocus, M. J.; Tang, C.; Piechocki, R. J.; Woodbridge, K.; and Chetty, K. 2021 b . On CSI and passive Wi-Fi radar for opportunistic physical activity recognition. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 21(1): 607--620

    2021

  8. [16]

    Lin, C.; Xu, C.; Luo, D.; Wang, Y.; Tai, Y.; Wang, C.; Li, J.; Huang, F.; and Fu, Y. 2021. Learning salient boundary feature for anchor-free temporal action localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 3320--3329

    2021

  9. [17]

    Lin, T.-Y.; Goyal, P.; Girshick, R.; He, K.; and Doll \'a r, P. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2980--2988

    2017

  10. [18]

    Liu, J.; Zeng, Y.; Gu, T.; Wang, L.; and Zhang, D. 2021. WiPhone: Smartphone-based Respiration Monitoring Using Ambient Reflected WiFi Signals. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., 5(1)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Liu, X.; Wang, Q.; Hu, Y.; Tang, X.; Zhang, S.; Bai, S.; and Bai, X. 2022. End-to-end temporal action detection with transformer. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31: 5427--5441

    2022

  12. [20]

    T.; and Zhang, L

    Meng, W.; Liu, Z.; Li, B.; Cui, W.; Zhou, J. T.; and Zhang, L. 2023. GrapHAR: A Lightweight Human Activity Recognition Model by Exploring the Sub-carrier Correlations. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications

    2023

  13. [21]

    Shi, D.; Zhong, Y.; Cao, Q.; Ma, L.; Li, J.; and Tao, D. 2023. Tridet: Temporal action detection with relative boundary modeling. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 18857--18866

    2023

  14. [22]

    Shou, Z.; Wang, D.; and Chang, S.-F. 2016. Temporal action localization in untrimmed videos via multi-stage cnns. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1049--1058

    2016

  15. [23]

    Sun, Z.; Ke, Q.; Rahmani, H.; Bennamoun, M.; Wang, G.; and Liu, J. 2022. Human action recognition from various data modalities: A review. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence

    2022

  16. [24]

    N.; Kim, K.; and Sohn, K

    Tang, T. N.; Kim, K.; and Sohn, K. 2023. TemporalMaxer: Maximize Temporal Context with only Max Pooling for Temporal Action Localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09055

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Tian, Y.; Lee, G.-H.; He, H.; Hsu, C.-Y.; and Katabi, D. 2018. RF-based fall monitoring using convolutional neural networks. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2(3): 1--24

    2018

  18. [26]

    Wang, B.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, L.; Long, T.; and Li, X. 2023 a . Temporal action localization in the deep learning era: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2023

  19. [27]

    Wang, F.; Gao, Y.; Lan, B.; Ding, H.; Shi, J.; and Han, J. 2023 b . U-Shape Networks Are Unified Backbones for Human Action Understanding From Wi-Fi Signals. IEEE Internet of Things Journal

    2023

  20. [28]

    Wang, P.; Zheng, W.; Chen, T.; and Wang, Z. 2022. Anti-Oversmoothing in Deep Vision Transformers via the Fourier Domain Analysis: From Theory to Practice

    2022

  21. [29]

    Xia, K.; Wang, L.; Zhou, S.; Zheng, N.; and Tang, W. 2022. Learning To Refactor Action and Co-Occurrence Features for Temporal Action Localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 13884--13893

    2022

  22. [30]

    Xiao, C.; Lei, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhou, F.; and Qin, Z. 2020. DeepSeg: Deep-learning-based activity segmentation framework for activity recognition using WiFi. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(7): 5669--5681

    2020

  23. [31]

    Yang, L.; Peng, H.; Zhang, D.; Fu, J.; and Han, J. 2020. Revisiting anchor mechanisms for temporal action localization. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29: 8535--8548

    2020

  24. [32]

    Yang, L.; Zheng, Z.; Han, Y.; Cheng, H.; Song, S.; Huang, G.; and Li, F. 2024. DyFADet: Dynamic Feature Aggregation for Temporal Action Detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Yang, Z.; Zhou, Z.; and Liu, Y. 2013. From RSSI to CSI: Indoor localization via channel response. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 46(2): 1--32

    2013

  26. [34]

    Yousefi, S.; Narui, H.; Dayal, S.; Ermon, S.; and Valaee, S. 2017. A survey on behavior recognition using WiFi channel state information. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(10): 98--104

    2017

  27. [35]

    Zeng, Y.; Wu, D.; Gao, R.; Gu, T.; and Zhang, D. 2018. FullBreathe: Full Human Respiration Detection Exploiting Complementarity of CSI Phase and Amplitude of WiFi Signals. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., 2(3)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Zhang, C.-L.; Wu, J.; and Li, Y. 2022. Actionformer: Localizing moments of actions with transformers. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 492--510. Springer

    2022

  29. [37]

    Zheng, Z.; Wang, P.; Liu, W.; Li, J.; Ye, R.; and Ren, D. 2020. Distance-IoU loss: Faster and better learning for bounding box regression. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, 12993--13000

    2020

  30. [38]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  31. [39]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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