Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 37 references

HFGCN:Hypergraph Fusion Graph Convolutional Networks for Skeleton-Based Action Recognition

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 Grouping skeleton joints into kinematic hyperedges—by body part and by distance from the body's core—and fusing them with attention-based graph convolution lifts skeleton-based action recognition past prior GCN methods on the NTU…

desk verdict Plausible incremental hypergraph GCN for skeleton action recognition; headline SOTA claims rest on a 91.5 vs 92.5 table conflict that must be resolved. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11007 v3 pith:45AZDVCB submitted 2025-01-19 cs.CV cs.LG

Pengcheng Dong , Wenbo Wan , Huaxiang Zhang , Shuai Li , Sujuan Hou , Jiande Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords skeleton-basedactionrecognitionhypergraphgraphconvolutionalnetworkkinematictopologybodypartgroupingattentionmodulechannel-wiseNTURGB+D
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

Action recognition from 3D skeleton data matters for surveillance, sports training, and human-computer interaction, and this paper tries to establish that grouping skeleton joints into kinematic categories improves it beyond what pairwise graph models achieve. The paper's instrument is a hypergraph—a graph whose edges can connect any number of joints at once—built from three groupings: a prior classification, body parts (arms, legs, torso, head-with-torso), and shells of distance from the body's core. A hypergraph attention module adapts the joint topology frame by frame, and a hypergraph convolution module refines it channel by channel. On the NTU benchmarks the method reports 93.1%/97.1% (X-Sub/X-View) and 90.1%/91.5% (X-Sub/X-Set), with 92.5% on X-Set in the multi-modal table and 96.1% on NW-UCLA, where the paper notes it trails InfoGCN because the dataset is smaller and has only 20 joints. The paper's conclusion flags the manual design of the hypergraph as its main limitation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hypergraph: a graph in which a hyperedge can connect any number of vertices, used here so that a whole class of joints (a body part, a distance shell) is one edge. Three incidence structures are built from three classification strategies—h1 from a prior hypergraph-transformer classification, h2 by body part, h3 by distance from the body's core—and each is multiplied into the input features to create three grouped feature branches. The Hypergraph Attention Module then fuses these branches with the raw stream: it forms queries $q$ and keys $k$ from the raw features, values $hk_0, hk_1, hk_2$ from the three hypergraph branches, and produces a frame-specific topology $$H_A = \mathrm{Softmax}(q\cdot k + q\cdot hk_0 + q\cdot hk_1 + q\cdot hk_2)$$ The Hypergraph Convolution Module optimizes the topology in the channel dimension: $$Y = \delta(X)\cdot(\tanh(\varphi(X)-\psi(X)) + A) + \delta(X)\cdot\tanh(\varphi(X)-\xi(X)) + \delta(X)\cdot H_A$$ combining the CTR-GC channel-distance branch, a hypergraph-distance branch, and the attention output. A multi-scale temporal convolution completes each unit. What carries the argument is that these three topologies give the network both point-pair and point-group views, and that HAM keeps the topology per frame rather than fixed across the sequence.

What would settle it

Re-run the reported configuration exactly, but replace the h2 and h3 hyperedges with random fixed groupings of identical size and cardinality; if accuracy stays within noise of the reported h2/h3 numbers, the kinematic content of the groupings is not what carries the gain. A second, cheaper check is per-class confusion: the kinematic premise predicts the largest h3-vs-h1 accuracy gains on whole-body and locomotion actions, not a uniform bump across all 120 classes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that the topology of the skeleton—which joints belong together—carries kinematic information that pairwise adjacency matrices discard, and that hypergraphs are the right encoding for it. Three hypergraph topologies are constructed: h1, adopted from Zhou et al.; h2, grouping joints by body part with the head attached to the torso because of its limited movement range; and h3, grouping joints by distance from the body's core, reflecting the principle that large proximal muscle groups generate movement while distal joints respond. The hypergraph incidence structures are multiplied into the feature stream, and two new modules act on the result: the Hypergraph Attention Module computes a per-frame topology that mixes point-pair and point-group correlations, and the Hypergraph Convolution Module refines the topology per channel by combining a channel-distance branch, a hypergraph-distance branch, and the attention output. Across datasets the paper reports top-1 accuracies of 93.1%/97.1% on NTU RGB+D (X-Sub/X-View), 90.1%/91.5% on NTU RGB+D 120 (X-Sub/X-Set, 92.5% in the ensemble table), and 96.1% on NW-UCLA, noting that the last trails InfoGCN's 96.6%. The ablations attribute the gain to the fusion of all three topologies and to the two hypergraph modules, which add about 1.9 points over the ST-GCN baseline; the conclusion concedes that the hypergraph is manually designed and leaves learning it to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the manually chosen groupings of joints into body parts and core-distance rings are kinematically meaningful for the benchmark actions, yet the exact joint-to-group assignments are never listed, only described in words and a figure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the NTU RGB+D benchmark, the paper reports 93.1% and 97.1% top-1 accuracy on Cross-Subject and Cross-View, the best figures in its comparison table for any method using all four modalities.
  • On NTU RGB+D 120, it reports 90.1% (Cross-Subject) and 91.5% (Cross-Setup), with the multi-modal ensemble table listing 92.5% for Cross-Setup.
  • The ablation study shows the gain is compositional: all three hypergraph topologies together outperform every single or pairwise combination, and adding HGCM and HAM lifts the ST-GCN baseline from 84.1% to 86.0% with roughly 0.63 million extra parameters.
  • Because HAM produces a per-frame topology, the model re-groups joints as the action unfolds, directly addressing the fixed-topology limitation the paper identifies in earlier GCNs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the kinematic premise is true, a concrete prediction follows: on NTU RGB+D 120, the h3 (core-distance) and h2 (body-part) groupings should concentrate their per-class gains on whole-body and locomotion actions, while a grouping whose accuracy came only from added parameters would produce uniform gains across classes.
  • The natural next step the paper only gestures at is learning the hypergraph incidence itself; because HAM already varies the topology per frame, the hand-built h1–h3 structures could serve as initialization for an end-to-end learned grouping.
  • The NW-UCLA result (96.1% vs. InfoGCN's 96.6%) and the paper's explanation suggest a scaling pattern: hypergraph gains should grow with the number of joints and samples, so re-running on a dataset with denser skeletons should show larger hypergraph deltas than the 20-joint NW-UCLA.
  • Because the h2 and h3 joint groupings are described in words and a figure rather than listed as incidence matrices, the exact hypergraphs are fully specified only by the released code, which the paper's text alone does not provide.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HFGCN, a graph convolutional network for skeleton-based action recognition that augments a standard GCN backbone with three hypergraph topologies: one adopted from prior work (h1), one grouping joints by body parts (h2), and one grouping joints by distance from the body core (h3). Two modules are introduced: a Hypergraph Attention Module (HAM) that models point-to-group correlations in the temporal dimension, and a Hypergraph Convolution Module (HGCM) that refines topology in the channel dimension. The method is evaluated on NTU RGB+D, NTU RGB+D 120, and NW-UCLA, with multi-modality fusion of joint, bone, joint motion, and bone motion streams. The paper reports state-of-the-art accuracy on the two NTU benchmarks and a slightly lower result than InfoGCN on NW-UCLA.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the contribution is a modest but useful empirical improvement: the kinematic motivation for manual hypergraph topologies is reasonable, and the ablation study attempts to isolate the effect of each topology and module. The paper is clearly written and includes comparisons against many recent methods. However, the central state-of-the-art claim is currently weakened by an internal numerical inconsistency between the two headline tables and by the absence of code, checkpoints, or multi-run statistics. The proposed topologies h2 and h3 are also not specified as explicit incidence matrices, which is a reproducibility gap for the paper's core design choice.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Tables 1 and 2] The same four-modality ensemble configuration (J+B+JM+BM) is reported as 91.5% on NTU RGB+D 120 X-Set in Table 1 and as 92.5% in Table 2. No experimental condition, modality list, preprocessing, or fusion rule distinguishes the two entries. Because the claimed margins over Hyperformer (91.2), InfoGCN (90.7), and FR-Head (90.9) are only 0.3 to 0.8 percentage points, this one-point discrepancy is decisive for whether the state-of-the-art claim holds. Please correct the tables and provide per-run results or training logs that reconcile the two numbers.
  2. [§4.3, Table 1 (NW-UCLA row) and Abstract] The abstract claims the method achieves the best performance on three widely used datasets, but Table 1 reports 96.1% on NW-UCLA, below InfoGCN's 96.6%, and the text explicitly acknowledges this. Please revise the abstract and conclusion to state the actual comparison, or provide additional experimental conditions that support a stronger claim.
  3. [§3.2 and Figure 2] The proposed h2 (body parts) and h3 (distance from core) topologies are described only qualitatively and via a schematic figure; the exact joint-to-hyperedge incidence matrices or explicit joint groupings are never provided. Since the ablation in Table 3 attributes accuracy gains to these topologies, readers cannot independently reproduce or test the central design choice. Please include the full incidence matrices or joint-grouping tables and release code.
  4. [§4.4, Table 4] The parameter and FLOP counts are internally inconsistent: 'baseline + HGCM + AM' is reported as 1.58M parameters and 1.98 GFLOPs, which is lighter than 'baseline + HGCM' at 1.63M parameters and 2.03 GFLOPs, despite the former adding an attention module. The accuracy gain from HAM is also only 0.5 points (85.5 to 86.0), which may be within run-to-run variation given that no error bars or multiple seeds are reported. Please clarify the configuration accounting and report results over multiple runs.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2 heading] The heading 'Releated Work' should be 'Related Work'.
  2. [Table 3 header] The header 'Tepology' should be 'Topology'.
  3. [Equation (3)] The line break between the first and second terms of Equation (3) appears to be missing a '+' operator; the formula should be clarified.
  4. [Table 1] The method name 'EifficientGCN-B4' should be spelled 'EfficientGCN-B4'.
  5. [§3.3] The notation hX is introduced without specifying how the three hypergraph topologies are multiplied with the input feature X; please define the incidence-matrix multiplication explicitly.
  6. [§4.2] The paper does not state the number of runs, random seeds, or variance of the reported accuracies; this is important because several headline differences are smaller than one percentage point.
  7. [Figures 1 and 2] The figures are referenced in the text but their content is difficult to map to the equations (e.g., q, k, hk0, hk1, hk2 are not all labeled); please add explicit subfigure references and ensure all symbols appear in the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the architecture and its components are empirically evaluated against external benchmarks, and no claimed prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. The three hypergraph topologies are stated design choices: h1 is adopted from an external paper (Zhou et al., 2022), while h2 and h3 are manually constructed from body-part grouping and distance-from-core reasoning, as explicitly acknowledged in the Conclusion: 'the hypergraph in our model is manually designed based on human motion theory.' The HAM and HGCM are defined by explicit formulas (Eq. 2 and Eq. 3) that combine learned convolutions and attention; they are not fitted to the benchmark accuracies they are claimed to produce. Reported results come from training on standard dataset splits and comparing with previously published methods, so the central SOTA claim is an experimental outcome, not a tautology. The ablation studies in Tables 3 and 4 compare model variants with and without the proposed modules, providing independent evidence that the components contribute to accuracy. The internal inconsistency between Table 1 (91.5%) and Table 2 (92.5%) for NTU RGB+D 120 X-Set under the same J+B+JM+BM configuration is a reproducibility and correctness concern, as is the abstract's 'best performance' claim despite NW-UCLA (96.1%) trailing InfoGCN (96.6%); however, neither issue involves a prediction reducing to its own inputs. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the cited GCN/hypergraph prior works are external, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter is invoked to force the result. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits no significant circularity.

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

The central claim is empirical, so the main burdens are the manually chosen hypergraph topologies and training hyperparameters. The two new topologies are design choices with no external validation; the imported h1 topology is taken from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • label_smoothing_weight = 0.1
    Set to 0.1 in Section 4.2 without sensitivity analysis; directly affects the reported accuracy.
  • frame_resampling_length = 64
    All samples are resized to 64 frames using linear interpolation, following Chen et al. This choice affects temporal modeling and results.
  • number_of_hypergraph_topologies = 3
    The model fuses exactly three manually chosen topologies. The ablation shows h1+h2+h3 is best, but only by a small margin over pairwise combinations.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Body-part and core-distance groupings encode action-relevant kinematic structure.
    Section 3.2 justifies h2 and h3 with qualitative biomechanics; no data-driven verification of the grouping is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The exact joint-to-hyperedge assignment for h2 and h3 is well-defined.
    Only a schematic Figure 2 is given, no incidence matrices. The implementation must supply a specific assignment that the reader cannot verify.
  • domain assumption The h1 topology from Zhou et al. is compatible with NTU and NW-UCLA joint sets.
    Section 3.2 imports h1; NW-UCLA has 20 joints while NTU has 25, and no adaptation is described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HFGCN:Hypergraph Fusion Graph Convolutional Networks for Skeleton-Based Action Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45AZDVCB

@misc{pith2026250111007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HFGCN:Hypergraph Fusion Graph Convolutional Networks for Skeleton-Based Action Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45AZDVCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11007}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, action recognition has received much attention and wide application due to its important role in video understanding. Most of the researches on action recognition methods focused on improving the performance via various deep learning methods rather than the classification of skeleton points. The topological modeling between skeleton points and body parts was seldom considered. Although some studies have used a data-driven approach to classify the topology of the skeleton point, the nature of the skeleton point in terms of kinematics has not been taken into consideration. Therefore, in this paper, we draw on the theory of kinematics to adapt the topological relations of the skeleton point and propose a topological relation classification based on body parts and distance from core of body. To synthesize these topological relations for action recognition, we propose a novel Hypergraph Fusion Graph Convolutional Network (HFGCN). In particular, the proposed model is able to focus on the human skeleton points and the different body parts simultaneously, and thus construct the topology, which improves the recognition accuracy obviously. We use a hypergraph to represent the categorical relationships of these skeleton points and incorporate the hypergraph into a graph convolution network to model the higher-order relationships among the skeleton points and enhance the feature representation of the network. In addition, our proposed hypergraph attention module and hypergraph graph convolution module optimize topology modeling in temporal and channel dimensions, respectively, to further enhance the feature representation of the network. We conducted extensive experiments on three widely used datasets.The results validate that our proposed method can achieve the best performance when compared with the state-of-the-art skeleton-based methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11007 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The illustration of our proposed HFGCN architecture, (a) is the overall architecture of HFGCN, (b) is the temporal convolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The illustration of the hypergraph topology construction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A review on the use of mi- crosoft kinect for gait abnormality and postural disor- der assessment

    [Bawa et al., 2021] Anthony Bawa, Konstantinos Banitsas, and Maysam Abbod. A review on the use of mi- crosoft kinect for gait abnormality and postural disor- der assessment. Journal of Healthcare Engineering , 2021(1):4360122,

    work page 2021

  2. [4]

    In- formed patch enhanced hypergcn for skeleton-based ac- tion recognition

    [Chen et al., 2022] Yanjun Chen, Ying Li, Chongyang Zhang, Hao Zhou, Yan Luo, and Chuanping Hu. In- formed patch enhanced hypergcn for skeleton-based ac- tion recognition. Information Processing & Management, 59(4):102950,

    work page 2022

  3. [7]

    An attention-enhanced recurrent graph convolutional net- work for skeleton-based action recognition

    [Ding et al., 2019] Xiaolu Ding, Kai Yang, and Wai Chen. An attention-enhanced recurrent graph convolutional net- work for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceed- ings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Signal Processing and Machine Learning, pages 79–84,

    work page 2019

  4. [10]

    Hypergraph neural network for skeleton-based action recognition

    [Hao et al., 2021] Xiaoke Hao, Jie Li, Yingchun Guo, Tao Jiang, and Ming Yu. Hypergraph neural network for skeleton-based action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30:2263–2275,

    work page 2021

  5. [11]

    Deep residual learning for image recog- nition

    [He et al., 2016] Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recog- nition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778,

    2016

  6. [13]

    Part-level graph convolutional network for skeleton-based action recognition

    [Huang et al., 2020] Linjiang Huang, Yan Huang, Wanli Ouyang, and Liang Wang. Part-level graph convolutional network for skeleton-based action recognition. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 11045–11052,

    work page 2020

  7. [14]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    [Kipf and Welling, 2017] Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations,

    2017

  8. [16]

    Ntu rgb+ d 120: A large-scale benchmark for 3d human activity un- derstanding

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

    work page 2019

Show all 37 references
  1. [17]

    Disentangling and unifying graph convolutions for skeleton-based action recognition

    [Liu et al., 2020] Ziyu Liu, Hongwen Zhang, Zhenghao Chen, Zhiyong Wang, and Wanli Ouyang. Disentangling and unifying graph convolutions for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 143– 152,

    2020

  2. [18]

    Temporal decoupling graph con- volutional network for skeleton-based gesture recognition

    [Liu et al., 2023] Jinfu Liu, Xinshun Wang, Can Wang, Yuan Gao, and Mengyuan Liu. Temporal decoupling graph con- volutional network for skeleton-based gesture recognition. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 26:811–823,

    2023

  3. [20]

    A survey on vision-based hu- man action recognition

    [Poppe, 2010] Ronald Poppe. A survey on vision-based hu- man action recognition. Image and vision computing , 28(6):976–990,

    2010

  4. [22]

    Two-stream adaptive graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition

    [Shi et al., 2019] Lei Shi, Yifan Zhang, Jian Cheng, and Hanqing Lu. 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, pages 12026–12035,

    2019

  5. [23]

    Two-stream convolutional networks for action recognition in videos

    [Simonyan and Zisserman, 2014] Karen Simonyan and An- drew Zisserman. Two-stream convolutional networks for action recognition in videos. Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 27,

    2014

  6. [25]

    Stronger, faster and more explain- able: A graph convolutional baseline for skeleton-based action recognition

    [Song et al., 2020] Yi-Fan Song, Zhang Zhang, Caifeng Shan, and Liang Wang. Stronger, faster and more explain- able: A graph convolutional baseline for skeleton-based action recognition. In proceedings of the 28th ACM in- ternational conference on multimedia , pages 1625–1633,

    2020

  7. [26]

    Human pose estimation and its ap- plication to action recognition: A survey.Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation , 76:103055,

    [Song et al., 2021] Liangchen Song, Gang Yu, Junsong Yuan, and Zicheng Liu. Human pose estimation and its ap- plication to action recognition: A survey.Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation , 76:103055,

    2021

  8. [27]

    Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision

    [Szegedy et al., 2016] Christian Szegedy, Vincent Van- houcke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2818–2826,

    2016

  9. [28]

    Part-based graph convolutional network for action recognition

    [Thakkar and Narayanan, 2018] Kalpit Thakkar and PJ Narayanan. Part-based graph convolutional network for action recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04983,

    2018 arXiv

  10. [30]

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

    [Vemulapalli et al., 2014] Raviteja Vemulapalli, Felipe Ar- rate, and Rama Chellappa. Human action recognition by representing 3d skeletons as points in a lie group. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 588–595,

    2014

  11. [31]

    Modeling temporal dynamics and spatial configurations of actions using two-stream recurrent neural networks

    [Wang and Wang, 2017] Hongsong Wang and Liang Wang. Modeling temporal dynamics and spatial configurations of actions using two-stream recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 499–508,

    2017

  12. [32]

    Cross-view action modeling, learning and recognition

    [Wang et al., 2014] Jiang Wang, Xiaohan Nie, Yin Xia, Ying Wu, and Song-Chun Zhu. Cross-view action modeling, learning and recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2649–2656,

    2014

  13. [33]

    A survey on video action recognition in sports: Datasets, methods and applications

    [Wu et al., 2022] Fei Wu, Qingzhong Wang, Jiang Bian, Ning Ding, Feixiang Lu, Jun Cheng, Dejing Dou, and Haoyi Xiong. A survey on video action recognition in sports: Datasets, methods and applications. IEEE Trans- actions on Multimedia, 25:7943–7966,

    2022

  14. [34]

    View invariant human action recognition using histograms of 3d joints

    [Xia et al., 2012] Lu Xia, Chia-Chih Chen, and Jake K Ag- garwal. View invariant human action recognition using histograms of 3d joints. In 2012 IEEE computer soci- ety conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, pages 20–27. IEEE,

    2012

  15. [36]

    Gesture interaction in virtual reality

    [Yang et al., 2019] LI Yang, Jin Huang, TIAN Feng, W ANG Hong-An, and DAI Guo-Zhong. Gesture interaction in virtual reality. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware , 1(1):84–112,

    2019

  16. [37]

    Hypergraph transformer for skeleton-based action recognition

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

    2022 arXiv

  17. [2010]

    Ntu rgb+ d: A large scale dataset for 3d human activity analysis

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

    2016

  18. [2012]

    Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition

    [Yan et al., 2018] Sijie Yan, Yuanjun Xiong, and Dahua Lin. Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 32,

    2018

  19. [2013]

    Channel- wise topology refinement graph convolution for skeleton- based action recognition

    [Chen et al., 2021] Yuxin Chen, Ziqi Zhang, Chunfeng Yuan, Bing Li, Ying Deng, and Weiming Hu. Channel- wise topology refinement graph convolution for skeleton- based action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 13359–13368,

    2021

  20. [2014]

    A multi-stream bi- directional recurrent neural network for fine-grained ac- tion detection

    [Singh et al., 2016] Bharat Singh, Tim K Marks, Michael Jones, Oncel Tuzel, and Ming Shao. A multi-stream bi- directional recurrent neural network for fine-grained ac- tion detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1961– 1970,

    2016

  21. [2015]

    Hypergraph neural net- works

    [Feng et al., 2019] Yifan Feng, Haoxuan You, Zizhao Zhang, Rongrong Ji, and Yue Gao. Hypergraph neural net- works. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 33, pages 3558–3565,

    2019

  22. [2016]

    An overview of human action recognition in sports based on computer vision

    [Host and Ivaˇsi´c-Kos, 2022] Kristina Host and Marina Ivaˇsi´c-Kos. An overview of human action recognition in sports based on computer vision. Heliyon, 8(6),

    2022

  23. [2017]

    Actional-structural graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition

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

    2019

  24. [2018]

    Learning spa- tiotemporal features with 3d convolutional networks

    [Tran et al., 2015] Du Tran, Lubomir Bourdev, Rob Fergus, Lorenzo Torresani, and Manohar Paluri. Learning spa- tiotemporal features with 3d convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on com- puter vision, pages 4489–4497,

    2015

  25. [2019]

    Hi- erarchical recurrent neural network for skeleton based ac- tion recognition

    [Du et al., 2015] Yong Du, Wei Wang, and Liang Wang. Hi- erarchical recurrent neural network for skeleton based ac- tion recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1110– 1118,

    2015

  26. [2020]

    Infogcn: Representation learning for human skeleton-based action recognition

    [Chi et al., 2022] Hyung-gun Chi, Myoung Hoon Ha, Se- unggeun Chi, Sang Wan Lee, Qixing Huang, and Karthik Ramani. Infogcn: Representation learning for human skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition...

    2022

  27. [2021]

    Hypergraph theory

    [Bretto, 2013] Alain Bretto. Hypergraph theory. An intro- duction. Mathematical Engineering. Cham: Springer , 1,

    2013

  28. [2022]

    Skeleton- based action recognition with shift graph convolutional network

    [Cheng et al., 2020] Ke Cheng, Yifan Zhang, Xiangyu He, Weihan Chen, Jian Cheng, and Hanqing Lu. Skeleton- based action recognition with shift graph convolutional network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 183–192,

    2020

  29. [2023]

    A survey on video-based human action recognition: recent updates, datasets, challenges, and applications

    [Pareek and Thakkar, 2021] Preksha Pareek and Ankit Thakkar. A survey on video-based human action recognition: recent updates, datasets, challenges, and applications. Artificial Intelligence Review , 54(3):2259– 2322,

    2021

Pith tools

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