Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 133 references

Evolving Skeletons: Motion Dynamics in Action Recognition

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Motion-injected Taylor skeletons improve ST-GCN accuracy on NTU-60 and NTU-120 but slightly reduce Hyperformer accuracy, showing that the value of motion-enriched skeletons depends on the model architecture.

desk verdict A useful but under-powered evaluation study: the reported architecture-dependent effect of Taylor skeletons is plausible and honestly discussed, yet the missing error bars and confounded Taylor configuration keep the headline interaction from being fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02593 v3 pith:N3KX4RES submitted 2025-01-05 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Jushang Qiu , Lei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords skeleton-basedactionrecognitionST-GCNHyperformerTaylor-transformedskeletonsmotiondynamicshypergraphNTURGB+Dcomparativeevaluation
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 sets out to answer whether enriching skeleton sequences with motion dynamics helps action recognition, and it finds that the answer depends on which model consumes the input. Using Taylor-transformed skeletons—joint positions augmented with velocity-like temporal derivatives—the authors report consistent top-1 accuracy gains for the graph-based ST-GCN on all four NTU benchmarks, and consistent losses for the hypergraph-transformer Hyperformer on the same benchmarks. Hyperformer nevertheless remains more accurate than ST-GCN in every setup, because its higher-order joint modeling gives it a starting advantage. The paper concludes that motion-injected input is not universally better: it supplies cues that fixed-topology graph convolutions can use, but it strips spatial arrangement that an adaptive hypergraph attention model still relies on. That is why the paper calls for architectures designed explicitly for motion-rich skeletons.

What carries the argument

The Taylor-transformed skeleton sequence is the load-bearing input representation: joint positions are augmented with temporal derivatives—zeroth-order positions, first-order velocity from frame-to-frame differences, and second-order acceleration—combined in the displacement concept with one term, four frames per temporal block, and step size one. This object carries the comparison: both models receive identical static or motion-enriched inputs, so any accuracy difference is attributed to how the architecture uses the added dynamics.

What would settle it

Re-run the ST-GCN and Hyperformer evaluations on NTU-60 Cross-Subject with a different Taylor block size (for example, eight frames) or with first- and second-order terms included, and check whether Hyperformer's top-1 accuracy still falls below its original-skeleton baseline; if the drop shrinks, reverses, or moves to other classes, the architecture-dependence claim is tied to the untuned transform configuration rather than to Taylor skeletons as such.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central finding is that injecting motion dynamics into skeleton sequences through the Taylor transform helps one architecture and hurts another. With ST-GCN, top-1 accuracy rises on all four benchmarks (NTU-60 X-Sub 81.5 to 83.5, X-View 88.3 to 89.4; NTU-120 X-Sub 70.7 to 74.1, X-Set 73.2 to 75.8). With Hyperformer, the same transformed input lowers accuracy on all four benchmarks (90.7 to 86.7, 95.1 to 92.1, 86.6 to 79.1, 88.0 to 81.9), and Hyperformer still beats ST-GCN in every configuration. The authors interpret this as evidence that Taylor skeletons supply motion-sensitive features that graph convolutions can exploit but that obscure spatial joint arrangement that the hypergraph-transformer still depends on.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the assumption that one fixed, untuned Taylor configuration is a fair test of motion-injected input for both ST-GCN and Hyperformer; if that configuration were tuned separately for each model, the reported gains and losses could change or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For ST-GCN, motion-injected skeletons act as implicit temporal feature engineering: adding them lifts accuracy by roughly 1 to 4 points across benchmarks without changing the network.
  • For Hyperformer, Taylor skeletons consistently cost 3 to 7 points, meaning the model sacrifices spatial joint-arrangement information that its hypergraph self-attention still depends on.
  • The benefit is action-specific: dynamic actions such as using a fan, wearing a shoe, and hopping improve, while spatially or fine-motor actions such as pointing, writing, and cutting with scissors degrade.
  • Because Hyperformer beats ST-GCN even with the transformed input, higher-order hypergraph modeling is the stronger baseline, but it is not the right home for this motion representation.
  • A hybrid that preserves spatial structure while adding motion derivatives is the paper's stated next step, and the confusion-matrix analysis gives a per-class map of where such a hybrid would help.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A per-model search over the Taylor configuration (block size, step size, or including second-order terms) might shrink or reverse the Hyperformer loss, since the paper uses one fixed, untuned configuration for both architectures.
  • A natural testable extension is a two-stream input that concatenates or fuses original and Taylor skeletons; the confusion matrices suggest this would recover Hyperformer's spatially reliant classes while keeping ST-GCN's motion gains.
  • The same interaction may generalize beyond these two models: architectures with fixed anatomical topology benefit from explicit derivatives, while attention-based models that can already infer dynamics from raw positions may only be hurt by the loss of spatial detail.
  • Per-class gains and losses are concentrated in actions with fine hand and finger motion, so a motion representation that encodes local joint-group derivatives rather than global displacement might serve both architectures.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper reports a comparative empirical study of two skeleton-based action recognition models, ST-GCN and Hyperformer, on the NTU-60 and NTU-120 benchmarks. For each model, the authors compare the original skeleton sequences against 'Taylor-transformed' skeletons, an input encoding borrowed from the prior Taylor Videos work (ref [95]) that is intended to emphasize motion dynamics. The headline finding is that Taylor-transformed skeletons improve ST-GCN accuracy on all four evaluated benchmarks (e.g., NTU-60 X-Sub 81.5% to 83.5%) but decrease Hyperformer accuracy (e.g., NTU-60 X-Sub 90.7% to 86.7%). The paper also provides per-class confusion matrices and tables of the action classes with the largest gains and losses under the transformation, and it discusses the trade-off between motion sensitivity and spatial detail.

Significance. If the reported interaction is reliable, the paper provides a useful empirical data point: the benefit of motion-injected skeleton representations is not uniform across architectures, and models with spatial-distance-based attention may be harmed by displacement-only inputs. The study's strengths are its breadth of benchmarks (four standard NTU splits), the detailed per-class analysis in Tables 2-9, and the honest disclosure that no hyperparameter search or denoising was performed. However, the paper's central contribution is purely empirical, and its credibility depends on the stability and confound-control of the reported accuracy numbers, both of which are currently insufficient for a journal-level claim about architecture-dependent input representations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 1] All accuracy values are from single runs with no error bars, multiple seeds, or significance tests. The central interaction claim (Taylor skeletons help ST-GCN and harm Hyperformer) rests on differences ranging from 1.1 to 7.5 percentage points across the four NTU benchmarks. In skeleton action recognition, run-to-run variation of this magnitude is common, so the reader cannot tell whether the observed interaction is a stable property or a seed artifact. For an evaluation-only paper, the authors should report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds, or apply a paired statistical test over the test set (e.g., bootstrap per-sample accuracies) to support the claim.
  2. [Section 4.1, Models] The Taylor encoding is fixed to 'the displacement concept with a single term, four frames per temporal block and a step size of one' with 'no hyperparameter search,' and each model uses its own standard training recipe. This confounds the input representation with the model's ability to consume that representation. Hyperformer's attention mechanism explicitly includes joint-distance attention computed on input coordinates (Section 3.3, Figure 2); a displacement-only representation removes the static spatial structure that this attention was designed to process. The 4-7 point drops for Hyperformer may therefore reflect an encoding/model mismatch rather than a general incompatibility between motion-enhanced skeletons and hypergraph-transformer models. The paper's own explanation in Section 4.2 ('they lack detailed spatial information... which the Hyperformer may still rely on') concedes this confound. To support the architecture-dependent conclusion, the authors should test at least one Taylor variant that retains static pose information, or tune the Taylor hyperparameters for Hyperformer, or explicitly re-frame the claim as being about this particular encoding and pipeline.
  3. [Sections 3.2 and 4.1] The description of the Taylor transform is internally inconsistent, and the exact input representation used in the experiments is not fully specified. Section 3.2 describes Taylor-transformed skeletons as combining zeroth-, first-, and second-order temporal derivatives, while Section 4.1 states that the experiments use 'the displacement concept with a single term' without defining that concept. The reader cannot determine whether the input fed to Hyperformer contains static joint coordinates, only velocities, or some combination. Since the paper's central interpretation hinges on the loss of spatial information in the Taylor input, the exact formula (and whether static positions are present) must be stated unambiguously, ideally in Section 4.1 or in a short appendix.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 1] Top-5 accuracy is reported only for the Taylor-transformed runs; the original-skeleton rows show '–' in the Top-5 columns. This prevents the reader from comparing top-5 performance between the two input conditions, which would be informative given the large top-1 differences for Hyperformer.
  2. [Contributions and Section 3.1] The paper frames the comparison as 'skeletal graphs versus hypergraphs,' but only one graph model (ST-GCN) and one hypergraph model (Hyperformer) are evaluated. The conclusions about representation families are model-specific and should be explicitly qualified as such, both in the contribution list and in the conclusion.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4] The captions state that predictions below 5% are filtered out for clarity, but several rows of the displayed matrices do not sum to approximately 100% even after accounting for this filtering (e.g., Figure 4(a), 'drink water' row). The paper should clarify whether the remaining discrepancy is due to rounding, filtering of additional values, or entries not shown, so that readers can trust the numerical values in the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical comparison with measured accuracies, not a derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: Taylor-transformed skeletons improve ST-GCN and decrease Hyperformer on NTU-60 and NTU-120. These are measured recognition accuracies reported in Table 1, not quantities derived from the input transformation. The Taylor transformation configuration is taken from the authors' prior work [95], which is a self-citation, but it is not load-bearing in a circular sense: the paper does not claim the improvement follows by definition, and the reported results include a negative effect for Hyperformer that is not forced by the citation. The fixed configuration ('displacement concept with a single term, four frames per temporal block and a step size of one', with 'no hyperparameter search') may limit external validity or fair comparison across architectures, but that is a correctness or generalization concern, not a circularity one. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no result is equivalent to its input by construction. The paper is self-contained as an evaluation against standard benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two main assumptions: the Taylor transformation configuration chosen from [95] is appropriate for both models, and the single-run benchmark numbers are reliable. Both are hand-chosen rather than independently validated, so the ledger is short but these assumptions carry the empirical conclusion.

free parameters (1)
  • Taylor transformation hyperparameters = single displacement term, 4 frames per temporal block, step size 1
    These settings are inherited from the authors' prior work (ref [95]) and are not tuned for Hyperformer. The conclusion that Taylor skeletons hurt Hyperformer may depend on this specific configuration, making it a hand-chosen parameter that affects the central claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption NTU-60 and NTU-120 benchmark protocols provide a valid measure of action recognition performance.
    The paper relies on the standard cross-subject, cross-view, and cross-setup splits without questioning their representativeness.
  • domain assumption The Taylor transformation as implemented from [95] correctly captures motion dynamics and is compatible with both ST-GCN and Hyperformer input layers.
    The transformation is taken from the authors' own prior work; its applicability to arbitrary skeleton sequences and to Hyperformer's input format is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-run accuracy values are treated as deterministic estimates of model performance.
    No multiple seeds or significance tests are provided, so the reported differences are assumed to be stable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolving Skeletons: Motion Dynamics in Action Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3KX4RES

@misc{pith2026250102593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolving Skeletons: Motion Dynamics in Action Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3KX4RES}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02593}
}
read the original abstract

Skeleton-based action recognition has gained significant attention for its ability to efficiently represent spatiotemporal information in a lightweight format. Most existing approaches use graph-based models to process skeleton sequences, where each pose is represented as a skeletal graph structured around human physical connectivity. Among these, the Spatiotemporal Graph Convolutional Network (ST-GCN) has become a widely used framework. Alternatively, hypergraph-based models, such as the Hyperformer, capture higher-order correlations, offering a more expressive representation of complex joint interactions. A recent advancement, termed Taylor Videos, introduces motion-enhanced skeleton sequences by embedding motion concepts, providing a fresh perspective on interpreting human actions in skeleton-based action recognition. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of both traditional skeleton sequences and Taylor-transformed skeletons using ST-GCN and Hyperformer models on the NTU-60 and NTU-120 datasets. We compare skeletal graph and hypergraph representations, analyzing static poses against motion-injected poses. Our findings highlight the strengths and limitations of Taylor-transformed skeletons, demonstrating their potential to enhance motion dynamics while exposing current challenges in fully using their benefits. This study underscores the need for innovative skeletal modelling techniques to effectively handle motion-rich data and advance the field of action recognition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02593 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual comparison of (Left) a static pose and (Right) a Taylor-transformed skeleton for the action cheer up. Mo￾tion dynamics are overlaid on the original skeleton for en￾hanced visualization. The size of the green circles indicates motion intensity, with larger circles representing bigger mo￾tions. Taylor-transformed skeletons emphasize dominant motions and dynamic patterns, while static poses highlight spatial arr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The evaluation pipeline explores the performance of two state-of-the-art models, ST-GCN and Hyperformer. Both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Confusion matrices of ST-GCN on NTU-60 (X-Sub) using (a) original skeletons and (b) Taylor-transformed skeletons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Confusion matrices of Hyperformer on NTU-60 (X-Sub) using (a) original skeletons and (b) Taylor-transformed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of (top) original skeletons and (bottom) Taylor-transformed skeletons. From left to right, the depicted actions are: “take off a shoe”, “wear a shoe”, “kicking something”, “nausea or vomiting”, “sneeze/cough”, and “touch chest (stomachache/heart pain)…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Confusion matrix of ST-GCN on NTU-60 (X-Sub) using original skeletons. Along the diagonal, darker colors represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Confusion matrix of ST-GCN on NTU-60 (X-Sub) using Taylor-transformed skeletons. Along the diagonal, darker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Confusion matrix of Hyperformer on NTU-60 (X-Sub) using original skeletons. Along the diagonal, darker colors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Confusion matrix of Hyperformer on NTU-60 (X-Sub) using Taylor-transformed skeletons. Along the diagonal, darker [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Confusion matrix of ST-GCN on NTU-120 (X-Sub) using original skeletons. Along the diagonal, darker colors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Confusion matrix of Hyperformer on NTU-120 (X-Sub) using original skeletons. Along the diagonal, darker colors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Confusion matrix of ST-GCN on NTU-120 (X-Sub) using Taylor skeletons. Along the diagonal, darker colors represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Confusion matrix of Hyperformer on NTU-120 (X-Sub) using Taylor skeletons. Along the diagonal, darker colors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [95]

    Lei Wang, Xiuyuan Yuan, Tom Gedeon, and Liang Zheng. 2024. Taylor videos for action recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03019 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Tasweer Ahmad, Lianwen Jin, Xin Zhang, Songxuan Lai, Guozhi Tang, and Luojun Lin. 2021. Graph convolutional neural network for human action recog- nition: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 2, 2 (2021), 128–145

    2021

  3. [2]

    Tamam Alsarhan, Syed Sadaf Ali, Ayoub Alsarhan, Iyyakutti Iyappan Ganapathi, and Naoufel Werghi. 2024. Human Action Recognition with Multi-Level Granu- larity and Pair-Wise Hyper GCN. In 2024 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG) . IEEE, 1–10

    2024

  4. [3]

    Tamam Alsarhan, Syed Sadaf Ali, Iyyakutti Iyappan Ganapathi, Ahmad Ali, and Naoufel Werghi. 2024. PH-GCN: Boosting Human Action Recognition through Multi-Level Granularity with Pair-wise Hyper GCN. IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  5. [4]

    Vu Ho Tran Anh and Thi-Oanh Nguyen. 2024. Enhanced Topology Repre- sentation Learning for Skeleton-Based Human Action Recognition. Procedia Computer Science 246 (2024), 3093–3102

    2024

  6. [5]

    Hamza Bouzid and Lahoucine Ballihi. 2024. SpATr: MoCap 3D human action recognition based on spiral auto-encoder and transformer network. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 241 (2024), 103974

    2024

  7. [6]

    Joao Carreira and Andrew Zisserman. 2017. Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset. In proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 6299–6308

    2017

  8. [7]

    Huilin Chen, Lei Wang, Yifan Chen, Tom Gedeon, and Piotr Koniusz. 2024. When spatial meets temporal in action recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15284 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 133 references
  1. [8]

    Qixiang Chen, Lei Wang, Piotr Koniusz, and Tom Gedeon. [n. d.]. Motion meets attention: Video motion prompts. In The 16th Asian Conference on Machine Learning (Conference Track)

  2. [9]

    Wenshuo Chen, Hongru Xiao, Erhang Zhang, Lijie Hu, Lei Wang, Mengyuan Liu, and Chen Chen. 2024. SATO: Stable Text-to-Motion Framework. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 6989–6997

    2024

  3. [10]

    Xi Chen and Markus Koskela. 2015. Skeleton-based action recognition with extreme learning machines. Neurocomputing 149 (2015), 387–396

    2015

  4. [11]

    Yanjun Chen, Ying Li, Chongyang Zhang, Hao Zhou, Yan Luo, and Chuanping Hu. 2022. Informed Patch Enhanced HyperGCN for skeleton-based action recognition. Information Processing & Management 59, 4 (2022), 102950

    2022

  5. [12]

    Zefang Chen, Yang Gao, and Qiuyan Yan. 2024. A Key Skeleton Points Guided Classroom Action Recognition Method Based on Multimodal Symmetry Fusion. IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Zengzhao Chen, Wenkai Huang, Hai Liu, Zhuo Wang, Yuqun Wen, and Sheng- ming Wang. 2024. ST-TGR: Spatio-Temporal Representation Learning for Skeleton-Based Teaching Gesture Recognition. Sensors 24, 8 (2024), 2589

    2024

  7. [14]

    Yan Cheng, Chengxing Fang, Jiawen Huang, et al. [n. d.]. Spatiotemporal Action Detection Based on Fine-Grained. Chengxing and Huang, Jiawen, Spatiotemporal Action Detection Based on Fine-Grained ([n. d.])

  8. [15]

    Sangwoo Cho, Muhammad Maqbool, Fei Liu, and Hassan Foroosh. 2020. Self- attention network for skeleton-based human action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision . 635–644

    2020

  9. [16]

    Haigang Deng, Guocheng Lin, Chengwei Li, and Chuanxu Wang. 2024. Research on decoupled adaptive graph convolution networks based on skeleton data for action recognition. Pattern Analysis and Applications 27, 4 (2024), 118

    2024

  10. [17]

    Chongyang Ding, Shan Wen, Wenwen Ding, Kai Liu, and Evgeny Belyaev

  11. [18]

    Dexuan Ding, Lei Wang, Liyun Zhu, Tom Gedeon, and Piotr Koniusz. 2024. Lego: Learnable expansion of graph operators for multi-modal feature fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01506 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Xi Ding and Lei Wang. 2024. Do language models understand time? arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13845 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Xi Ding and Lei Wang. 2024. Quo Vadis, Anomaly Detection? LLMs and VLMs in the Spotlight. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18298 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Jeonghyeok Do and Munchurl Kim. 2025. Skateformer: skeletal-temporal trans- former for human action recognition. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 401–420

    2025

  15. [22]

    Yong Du, Yun Fu, and Liang Wang. 2015. Skeleton based action recognition with convolutional neural network. In 2015 3rd IAPR Asian conference on pattern recognition (ACPR). IEEE, 579–583

    2015

  16. [23]

    Haodong Duan, Jiaqi Wang, Kai Chen, and Dahua Lin. 2022. Dg-stgcn: Dynamic spatial-temporal modeling for skeleton-based action recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.05895 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Haodong Duan, Jiaqi Wang, Kai Chen, and Dahua Lin. 2022. Pyskl: Towards good practices for skeleton action recognition. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 7351–7354

    2022

  18. [25]

    Michael Duhme, Raphael Memmesheimer, and Dietrich Paulus. 2021. Fusion- gcn: Multimodal action recognition using graph convolutional networks. In DAGM German conference on pattern recognition . Springer, 265–281

    2021

  19. [26]

    Zheng Fang, Xiongwei Zhang, Tieyong Cao, Yunfei Zheng, and Meng Sun. 2022. A new adjacency matrix configuration in GCN-based models for skeleton-based action recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14344 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Mesafint Fanuel, Xiaohong Yuan, Hyung Nam Kim, Letu Qingge, and Kaushik Roy. 2021. A survey on skeleton-based activity recognition using graph convo- lutional networks (GCN). In 2021 12th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis (ISPA). IEEE, 177–182

    2021

  21. [28]

    Liqi Feng, Yaqin Zhao, Wenxuan Zhao, and Jiaxi Tang. 2022. A comparative review of graph convolutional networks for human skeleton-based action recog- nition. Artificial Intelligence Review (2022), 1–31

    2022

  22. [29]

    Yifan Feng, Haoxuan You, Zizhao Zhang, Rongrong Ji, and Yue Gao. 2019. Hypergraph neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 33. 3558–3565

    2019

  23. [30]

    Benjamin Filtjens, Bart Vanrumste, and Peter Slaets. 2022. Skeleton-based action segmentation with multi-stage spatial-temporal graph convolutional neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 12, 1 (2022), 202–212

    2022

  24. [31]

    Annalisa Franco, Antonio Magnani, and Dario Maio. 2020. A multimodal ap- proach for human activity recognition based on skeleton and RGB data. Pattern Recognition Letters 131 (2020), 293–299

    2020

  25. [32]

    Bing-Kun Gao, Le Dong, Hong-Bo Bi, and Yun-Ze Bi. 2022. Focus on temporal graph convolutional networks with unified attention for skeleton-based action recognition. Applied Intelligence 52, 5 (2022), 5608–5616

    2022

  26. [33]

    Yue Gao, Jiaxuan Lu, Siqi Li, Yipeng Li, and Shaoyi Du. 2024. Hypergraph-Based Multi-View Action Recognition Using Event Cameras. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    Yue Gao, Meng Wang, Dacheng Tao, Rongrong Ji, and Qionghai Dai. 2012. 3-D object retrieval and recognition with hypergraph analysis. IEEE transactions on image processing 21, 9 (2012), 4290–4303

    2012

  28. [35]

    Wen Ge, Guanyi Mou, Emmanuel O Agu, and Kyumin Lee. 2024. Deep Het- erogeneous Contrastive Hyper-Graph Learning for In-the-Wild Context-Aware Human Activity Recognition. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 7, 4 (2024), 1–23

    2024

  29. [36]

    Rui Hang and MinXian Li. 2022. Spatial-temporal adaptive graph convolutional network for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision . 1265–1281

    2022

  30. [37]

    Xiaoke Hao, Jie Li, Yingchun Guo, Tao Jiang, and Ming Yu. 2021. Hypergraph Neural Network for Skeleton-Based Action Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 30 (2021), 2263–2275. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2021.3051495

    2021

  31. [38]

    Lianyu Hu, Shenglan Liu, and Wei Feng. 2023. Skeleton-based action recog- nition with local dynamic spatial–temporal aggregation. Expert Systems with Applications 232 (2023), 120683

    2023

  32. [39]

    Hongbo Huang, Longfei Xu, Yaolin Zheng, and Xiaoxu Yan. 2024. MAFormer: A cross-channel spatio-temporal feature aggregation method for human action recognition. AI Communications Preprint (2024), 1–15

    2024

  33. [40]

    Junhao Huang, Ziming Wang, Jian Peng, and Feihu Huang. 2023. Feature recon- struction graph convolutional network for skeleton-based action recognition. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 126 (2023), 106855

    2023

  34. [41]

    Yuchi Huang, Qingshan Liu, and Dimitris Metaxas. 2009. ] Video object seg- mentation by hypergraph cut. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. IEEE, 1738–1745

    2009

  35. [42]

    Zengxi Huang, Yusong Qin, Xiaobing Lin, Tianlin Liu, Zhenhua Feng, and Yiguang Liu. 2022. Motion-driven spatial and temporal adaptive high-resolution graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technol...

    2022

  36. [43]

    Shengqin Jiang, Haokui Zhang, Yuankai Qi, and Qingshan Liu. 2024. Spatial- temporal interleaved network for efficient action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics (2024)

    2024

  37. [44]

    Misha Karim, Shah Khalid, Aliya Aleryani, Jawad Khan, Irfan Ullah, and Zafar Ali. 2024. Human action recognition systems: A review of the trends and state-of-the-art. IEEE Access (2024)

    2024

  38. [45]

    Manjin Kim, Paul Hongsuck Seo, Cordelia Schmid, and Minsu Cho. 2024. Learn- ing correlation structures for vision transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 18941–18951

    2024

  39. [46]

    Sunwoo Kim, Soo Yong Lee, Yue Gao, Alessia Antelmi, Mirko Polato, and Kijung Shin. 2024. A survey on hypergraph neural networks: An in-depth and step-by- step guide. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 6534–6544

    2024

  40. [47]

    Piotr Koniusz, Lei Wang, and Anoop Cherian. 2021. Tensor representations for action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44, 2 (2021), 648–665

    2021

  41. [48]

    Ce Li, Chunyu Xie, Baochang Zhang, Jungong Han, Xiantong Zhen, and Jie Chen

  42. [49]

    Maosen Li, Siheng Chen, Xu Chen, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Qi Tian. 2019. Actional-structural graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 3595–3603. WWW Companion ’2...

    2019

  43. [50]

    Tianchen Li, Pei Geng, Xuequan Lu, Wanqing Li, and Lei Lyu. 2024. Skeleton- based action recognition through attention guided heterogeneous graph neural network. Knowledge-Based Systems (2024), 112868

    2024

  44. [51]

    Xiaolong Li, Yang Dong, Yunfei Yi, Zhixun Liang, and Shuqi Yan. 2024. Hyper- graph Neural Network for Multimodal Depression Recognition. Electronics 13, 22 (2024), 4544

    2024

  45. [52]

    Xuanfeng Li, Jian Lu, Jian Zhou, Wei Liu, and Kaibing Zhang. 2024. Multi- temporal scale aggregation refinement graph convolutional network for skeleton-based action recognition. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 35, 1 (2024), e2221

    2024

  46. [53]

    Fenglin Liu, Chenyu Wang, Zhiqiang Tian, Shaoyi Du, and Wei Zeng. 2025. Advancing skeleton-based human behavior recognition: multi-stream fusion spatiotemporal graph convolutional networks. Complex & Intelligent Systems 11, 1 (2025), 94

    2025

  47. [54]

    Guiyu Liu, Jiuchao Qian, Fei Wen, Xiaoguang Zhu, Rendong Ying, and Peilin Liu. 2019. Action recognition based on 3d skeleton and rgb frame fusion. In 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 258–264

    2019

  48. [55]

    Jinfu Liu, Chen Chen, and Mengyuan Liu. 2024. Multi-modality co-learning for efficient skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 4909–4918

    2024

  49. [56]

    Jun Liu, Amir Shahroudy, Mauricio Perez, Gang Wang, Ling-Yu Duan, and Alex C Kot. 2019. Ntu rgb+ d 120: A large-scale benchmark for 3d human activity understanding. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 42, 10 (2019), 2684–2701

    2019

  50. [57]

    Shengyuan Liu, Pei Lv, Yuzhen Zhang, Jie Fu, Junjin Cheng, Wanqing Li, Bing Zhou, and Mingliang Xu. 2020. Semi-Dynamic Hypergraph Neural Network for 3D Pose Estimation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-20 , Chr...

    2020 doi

  51. [58]

    Shaocan Liu, Xingtao Wang, Ruiqin Xiong, and Xiaopeng Fan. 2024. GCN-based Multi-modality Fusion Network for Action Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2024)

    2024

  52. [59]

    Yi Liu, Ruyi Liu, Yuzhi Hu, Mengyao Wu, Wentian Xin, Qiguang Miao, Shuai Wu, and Long Li. [n. d.]. A Systematic Review of Skeleton-Based Action Recognition: Recent Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions. Challenges, and Future Directions ([n. d.])

  53. [60]

    Yanan Liu, Hao Zhang, Yanqiu Li, Kangjian He, and Dan Xu. 2023. Skeleton- based human action recognition via large-kernel attention graph convolutional network. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 5 (2023), 2575–2585

    2023

  54. [61]

    Ziyu Liu, Hongwen Zhang, Zhenghao Chen, Zhiyong Wang, and Wanli Ouyang

  55. [62]

    Mayank Lovanshi and Vivek Tiwari. 2024. Human skeleton pose and spatio- temporal feature-based activity recognition using ST-GCN. Multimedia Tools and Applications 83, 5 (2024), 12705–12730

    2024

  56. [63]

    Nan Ma, Zhixuan Wu, Yifan Feng, Cheng Wang, and Yue Gao. 2024. Multi- View Time-Series Hypergraph Neural Network for Action Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (2024)

    2024

  57. [64]

    Woomin Myung, Nan Su, Jing-Hao Xue, and Guijin Wang. 2024. DeGCN: De- formable Graph Convolutional Networks for Skeleton-Based Action Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 33 (2024), 2477–2490

    2024

  58. [65]

    Zhenyue Qin, Yang Liu, Pan Ji, Dongwoo Kim, Lei Wang, Saeed Anwar, and Tom Gedeon. 2022. Fusing higher-order features in graph neural networks for skeleton-based action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 35, 4 (2022), 4783–4797

    2022

  59. [66]

    Mrugendrasinh Rahevar, Amit Ganatra, Tanzila Saba, Amjad Rehman, and Saeed Ali Bahaj. 2023. Spatial–temporal dynamic graph attention network for skeleton-based action recognition. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 21546–21553

    2023

  60. [67]

    Arjun Raj, Lei Wang, and Tom Gedeon. 2024. Tracknetv4: Enhancing fast sports object tracking with motion attention maps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14543 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Bin Ren, Mengyuan Liu, Runwei Ding, and Hong Liu. 2024. A survey on 3d skeleton-based action recognition using learning method. Cyborg and Bionic Systems 5 (2024), 0100

    2024

  62. [69]

    Zilaing Ren, Li Luo, Yong Qin, Xiangyang Gao, and Qieshi Zhang. [n. d.]. Skeleton-Guided and Supervised Learning of Hybrid Network for Multi-Modal Action Recognition. A vailable at SSRN 4970121([n. d.])

  63. [70]

    ZiLiang Ren, QieShi Zhang, Qin Cheng, ZhenYu Xu, Shuai Yuan, and Delin Luo. 2024. Segment differential aggregation representation and supervised compensation learning of ConvNets for human action recognition. Science China Technological Sciences 67, 1 (2024), 197–208

    2024

  64. [71]

    Amir Shahroudy, Jun Liu, Tian-Tsong Ng, and Gang Wang. 2016. Ntu rgb+ d: A large scale dataset for 3d human activity analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 1010–1019

    2016

  65. [72]

    Muhammad Bilal Shaikh, Douglas Chai, Syed Muhammad Shamsul Islam, and Naveed Akhtar. 2024. From CNNs to Transformers in Multimodal Human Action Recognition: A Survey. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications (2024)

    2024

  66. [73]

    Lei Shi, Yifan Zhang, Jian Cheng, and Hanqing Lu. 2019. Skeleton-based action recognition with directed graph neural networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 7912–7921

    2019

  67. [74]

    Lei Shi, Yifan Zhang, Jian Cheng, and Hanqing Lu. 2019. Two-stream adaptive graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 12026–12035

    2019

  68. [75]

    Chenyang Si, Wentao Chen, Wei Wang, Liang Wang, and Tieniu Tan. 2019. An attention enhanced graph convolutional lstm network for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 1227–1236

    2019

  69. [76]

    Yi-Fan Song, Zhang Zhang, Caifeng Shan, and Liang Wang. 2022. Construct- ing stronger and faster baselines for skeleton-based action recognition. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 45, 2 (2022), 1474–1488

    2022

  70. [77]

    Yaohui Sun, Weiyao Xu, Xiaoyi Yu, and Ju Gao. 2024. VT-BPAN: vision transformer-based bilinear pooling and attention network fusion of RGB and skeleton features for human action recognition. Multimedia Tools and Applica- tions 83, 29 (2024), 73391–73405

    2024

  71. [78]

    Haoyu Tian, Xin Ma, Xiang Li, and Yibin Li. 2023. Skeleton-based action recognition with select-assemble-normalize graph convolutional networks.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2023)

    2023

  72. [79]

    Xiaoyan Tian, Ye Jin, Zhao Zhang, Peng Liu, and Xianglong Tang. 2024. Spatial- temporal graph transformer network for skeleton-based temporal action seg- mentation. Multimedia Tools and Applications 83, 15 (2024), 44273–44297

    2024

  73. [80]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  74. [81]

    Cheng Wang, Nan Ma, Zhixuan Wu, Jin Zhang, and Yongqiang Yao. 2022. Survey of Hypergraph Neural Networks and Its Application to Action Recognition. In CAAI International Conference on Artificial Intelligence . Springer, 387–398

    2022

  75. [82]

    Lei Wang. 2017. Analysis and Evaluation of Kinect-based Action Recognition Algorithms. Master’s thesis. School of the Computer Science and Software Engineering, The University of Western Australia

    2017

  76. [83]

    Lei Wang. 2023. Robust human action modelling . Ph. D. Dissertation. The Australian National University (Australia)

    2023

  77. [84]

    Lei Wang, Du Q Huynh, and Piotr Koniusz. 2019. A comparative review of recent kinect-based action recognition algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 29 (2019), 15–28

    2019

  78. [85]

    Lei Wang, Du Q Huynh, and Moussa Reda Mansour. 2019. Loss switching fusion with similarity search for video classification. In 2019 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 974–978

    2019

  79. [86]

    Lei Wang and Piotr Koniusz. 2021. Self-supervising action recognition by statistical moment and subspace descriptors. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on multimedia . 4324–4333

    2021

  80. [87]

    Lei Wang and Piotr Koniusz. 2022. Temporal-viewpoint transportation plan for skeletal few-shot action recognition. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision. 4176–4193

    2022

  81. [88]

    Lei Wang and Piotr Koniusz. 2022. Uncertainty-dtw for time series and se- quences. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 176–195

    2022

  82. [89]

    Lei Wang and Piotr Koniusz. 2023. 3mformer: Multi-order multi-mode trans- former for skeletal action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 5620–5631

    2023

  83. [90]

    Lei Wang and Piotr Koniusz. 2024. Flow dynamics correction for action recog- nition. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 3795–3799

    2024

  84. [91]

    Lei Wang, Piotr Koniusz, and Du Q Huynh. 2019. Hallucinating idt descriptors and i3d optical flow features for action recognition with cnns. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 8698–8708

    2019

  85. [92]

    Lei Wang, Jun Liu, and Piotr Koniusz. 2021. 3D Skeleton-based Few-shot Action Recognition with JEANIE is not so Naïve.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.12668 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  86. [93]

    Lei Wang, Jun Liu, Liang Zheng, Tom Gedeon, and Piotr Koniusz. 2024. Meet JEANIE: a Similarity Measure for 3D Skeleton Sequences via Temporal- Viewpoint Alignment. International Journal of Computer Vision (2024), 1–32

    2024

  87. [94]

    Lei Wang, Ke Sun, and Piotr Koniusz. 2024. High-order tensor pooling with at- tention for action recognition. InICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 3885–3889

    2024

  88. [96]

    Xinghan Wang and Yadong Mu. 2024. Localized Linear Temporal Dynamics for Self-supervised Skeleton Action Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2024)

    2024

  89. [97]

    Ying Wang, Lu Zhang, Jingliang Peng, and Na Lv. [n. d.]. Motion-Centric Retrieval of 3d Human Skeleton and 2d Human Image Sequences. A vailable at SSRN 4925586 ([n. d.]). Evolving Skeletons: Motion Dynamics in Action Recognition WWW Companion ’25, April 28-May 2, 2025, Sydney,...

    2025

  90. [98]

    Zhengjie Wang, Mingjing Ma, Xiaoxue Feng, Xue Li, Fei Liu, Yinjing Guo, and Da Chen. 2022. Skeleton-based human pose recognition using channel state information: A survey. Sensors 22, 22 (2022), 8738

    2022

  91. [99]

    Xu Weiyao, Wu Muqing, Zhao Min, and Xia Ting. 2021. Fusion of skeleton and RGB features for RGB-D human action recognition. IEEE sensors journal 21, 17 (2021), 19157–19164

    2021

  92. [100]

    Qianhan Wu, Qian Huang, and Xing Li. 2023. Multimodal human action recog- nition based on spatio-temporal action representation recognition model. Mul- timedia Tools and Applications 82, 11 (2023), 16409–16430

    2023

  93. [101]

    Weiwei Wu, Fengbin Tu, Mengqi Niu, Zhiheng Yue, Leibo Liu, Shaojun Wei, Xiangyu Li, Yang Hu, and Shouyi Yin. 2023. STAR: An STGCN ARchitecture for Skeleton-Based Human Action Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers 70, 6 (2023), 2370–2383

    2023

  94. [102]

    Zhize Wu, Yue Ding, Long Wan, Teng Li, and Fudong Nian. 2025. Local and global self-attention enhanced graph convolutional network for skeleton-based action recognition. Pattern Recognition 159 (2025), 111106

    2025

  95. [103]

    Zhixuan Wu, Nan Ma, Cheng Wang, Cheng Xu, Genbao Xu, and Mingxing Li

  96. [104]

    Limin Xia and Xin Wen. 2024. Multi-stream network with key frame sampling for human action recognition. The Journal of Supercomputing (2024), 1–31

    2024

  97. [105]

    Zhenggui Xie, Gengzhong Zheng, Liming Miao, and Wei Huang. 2023. STGL- GCN: Spatial–temporal mixing of global and local self-attention graph convolu- tional networks for human action recognition. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 16526– 16532

    2023

  98. [106]

    Wentian Xin, Ruyi Liu, Yi Liu, Yu Chen, Wenxin Yu, and Qiguang Miao. 2023. Transformer for skeleton-based action recognition: A review of recent advances. Neurocomputing 537 (2023), 164–186

    2023

  99. [107]

    Yuling Xing, Jia Zhu, Yu Li, Jin Huang, and Jinlong Song. 2023. An improved spatial temporal graph convolutional network for robust skeleton-based action recognition. Applied Intelligence 53, 4 (2023), 4592–4608

    2023

  100. [108]

    Zhuoyan Xu and Jingke Xu. 2024. GR-Former: Graph-reinforcement transformer for skeleton-based driver action recognition. IET Computer Vision 18, 7 (2024), 982–991

    2024

  101. [109]

    Naganand Yadati, Madhav Nimishakavi, Prateek Yadav, Vikram Nitin, Anand Louis, and Partha Talukdar. 2019. Hypergcn: A new method for training graph convolutional networks on hypergraphs. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  102. [110]

    Sijie Yan, Yuanjun Xiong, and Dahua Lin. 2018. Spatial temporal graph convo- lutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 32

    2018

  103. [111]

    Fan Yang, Yang Wu, Sakriani Sakti, and Satoshi Nakamura. 2019. Make skeleton- based action recognition model smaller, faster and better. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on Multimedia in Asia . 1–6

    2019

  104. [112]

    Hao Yang, Dan Yan, Li Zhang, Yunda Sun, Dong Li, and Stephen J Maybank. 2021. Feedback graph convolutional network for skeleton-based action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 31 (2021), 164–175

    2021

  105. [113]

    Shiqiang YANG, Zhuo LI, Jinhua WANG, Duo HE, Qi LI, and Dexin LI. 2023. ST-GCN human action recognition based on new partition strategy. Computer Integrated Manufacturing System 29, 12 (2023), 4040

    2023

  106. [114]

    Yijie Yang, Jinlu Zhang, Jiaxu Zhang, and Zhigang Tu. 2024. Expressive Key- points for Skeleton-based Action Recognition via Skeleton Transformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18011 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Bruce XB Yu, Yan Liu, and Keith CC Chan. 2020. Skeleton focused human activity recognition in rgb video. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13979 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Rujing Yue, Zhiqiang Tian, and Shaoyi Du. 2022. Action recognition based on RGB and skeleton data sets: A survey. Neurocomputing 512 (2022), 287–306

    2022

  109. [117]

    Jiaxu Zhang, Gaoxiang Ye, Zhigang Tu, Yongtao Qin, Qianqing Qin, Jinlu Zhang, and Jun Liu. 2022. A spatial attentive and temporal dilated (SATD) GCN for skeleton-based action recognition. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology 7, 1 (2022), 46–55

    2022

  110. [118]

    Xiantong Zhen, Ling Shao, Dacheng Tao, and Xuelong Li. 2013. Embedding motion and structure features for action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 23, 7 (2013), 1182–1190

    2013

  111. [119]

    Dengyong Zhou, Jiayuan Huang, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2006. Learning with hypergraphs: Clustering, classification, and embedding. Advances in neural information processing systems 19 (2006)

    2006

  112. [120]

    Yuxuan Zhou, Zhi-Qi Cheng, Chao Li, Yanwen Fang, Yifeng Geng, Xuansong Xie, and Margret Keuper. 2022. Hypergraph transformer for skeleton-based action recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09590 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Yuxuan Zhou, Xudong Yan, Zhi-Qi Cheng, Yan Yan, Qi Dai, and Xian-Sheng Hua. 2024. BlockGCN: Redefine Topology Awareness for Skeleton-Based Action Recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2049–2058

    2024

  114. [122]

    Anlei Zhu, Yinghui Wang, Jinlong Yang, Tao Yan, Haomiao Ma, and Wei Li

  115. [123]

    Liyun Zhu, Lei Wang, Arjun Raj, Tom Gedeon, and Chen Chen. [n. d.]. Advanc- ing Video Anomaly Detection: A Concise Review and a New Dataset. In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track

  116. [124]

    Xingyu Zhu, Xiangbo Shu, and Jinhui Tang. 2024. Motion-Aware Mask Feature Reconstruction for Skeleton-Based Action Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (2024)

    2024

  117. [125]

    Xiaolin Zhu, Dongli Wang, Jianxun Li, Rui Su, Qin Wan, and Yan Zhou. 2024. Dynamical Attention Hypergraph Convolutional Network for Group Activity Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2024)

    2024

  118. [126]

    Yiran Zhu, Guangji Huang, Xing Xu, Yanli Ji, and Fumin Shen. 2022. Selective hypergraph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the 2022 international conference on multimedia retrieval. 518–526

    2022

  119. [127]

    IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology(2024)

    YOWOv3: A Lightweight Spatio-Temporal Joint Network for Video Action Detection. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology(2024)

    2024

  120. [128]

    take off a shoe

    Tianming Zhuang, Zhen Qin, Yi Ding, Zhiguang Qin, Ji Geng, Yi Liu, and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo. 2024. DSDC-GCN: Decoupled Static-Dynamic Co-occurrence Graph Convolutional Networks for Skeleton-Based Action Recog- nition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Techn...

    2024

  121. [132]

    Yisheng Zhu, Hui Shuai, Guangcan Liu, and Qingshan Liu. 2022. Multilevel spatial–temporal excited graph network for skeleton-based action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 32 (2022), 496–508

    2022

  122. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Disentangling and unifying graph convolutions for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 143–152

  123. [2021]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 33, 9 (2021), 4800–4814

    Memory attention networks for skeleton-based action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 33, 9 (2021), 4800–4814

    2021

  124. [2022]

    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 110 (2022), 104675

    Temporal segment graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 110 (2022), 104675

    2022

  125. [2024]

    Pattern Recognition 151 (2024), 110427

    Spatial–temporal hypergraph based on dual-stage attention network for multi-view data lightweight action recognition. Pattern Recognition 151 (2024), 110427

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.