Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 75 references

PhysLab: A Benchmark Dataset for Multi-Granularity Visual Parsing of Physics Experiments

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces PhysLab, a multi-granularity dataset of student-run physics experiments on which current action and interaction models perform far worse than on existing procedural benchmarks.

desk verdict Novel educational procedural video dataset with real value, but annotation reliability is unverified and a duplicated table row undermines trust in the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06631 v2 pith:IEGCOEI4 submitted 2025-06-07 cs.CV

Minghao Zou , Qingtian Zeng , Yongping Miao , Shangkun Liu , Zilong Wang , Hantao Liu , Wei Zhou This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords ProceduralVideoPhysicsLabEducationVisualParsingMulti-GranularityAnnotationActionRecognitionHuman-ObjectInteractionDetectionBenchmarkDataset
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 introduces PhysLab, the first video dataset of university students performing real physics experiments, built to support multi-granularity visual parsing. The dataset contains 620 long-form videos (about 31 hours) with temporal annotations of 3,873 action instances across 32 experimental step types, plus 4,500 keyframes labeled with 34 object classes and 24 interaction verbs arranged as human-object interaction triplets. Across action alignment and action segmentation, four established models score substantially lower on PhysLab than on the existing procedural benchmarks Breakfast and CrossTask, and HOI detection models show wider performance spreads between categories. The paper argues that PhysLab fills a gap in educational domains and provides a more discriminating testbed for fine-grained, procedure-aware vision.

What carries the argument

The central object is the PhysLab dataset itself, with its multi-granularity annotation scheme: temporal labels (action category, start, and end for 32 step types), spatial labels (bounding boxes for 34 object classes on 4,500 keyframes), and HOI triplets built from 24 interaction verbs. The supporting mechanism is the link between annotations and official university lab manuals, represented as Petri-Net style process models, which encodes the procedural logic that the benchmarks test.

What would settle it

Have independent physics-experiment instructors re-annotate a random sample of, say, 10% of the videos and keyframes, and measure per-frame action-label agreement, temporal-boundary IoU, box IoU, and interaction-verb agreement against the published labels. If agreement falls well below typical benchmark thresholds (for example, frame-level Cohen's kappa below 0.6), the performance gap between PhysLab and Breakfast/CrossTask would likely be inflated by label noise rather than genuine task difficulty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PhysLab is claimed to be the first benchmark dataset that combines long-form, in-the-wild procedural video of physics experiments with multi-granularity labels: temporal action boundaries and categories, object bounding boxes, and human-object interaction verbs, together with structured process models derived from official lab manuals. The paper reports benchmark experiments showing that current action-recognition and HOI-detection models perform worse on PhysLab than on familiar procedural datasets, with larger gaps between the best and worst methods, which it attributes to the dataset's task authenticity, execution flexibility, and annotation granularity. The central claim is that this combination makes PhysLab a more challenging and more useful resource for advancing visual parsing in educational settings.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes the ground-truth annotations are accurate and consistent, yet the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement scores or label-noise audit, so systematic errors by the student annotators could undermine the benchmark numbers and the difficulty comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Action recognition and segmentation models that saturate on cooking and assembly datasets leave a large gap on physics lab procedures, so PhysLab can serve as a more discriminating benchmark for procedural understanding.
  • The dataset's inclusion of real procedural errors and execution deviations supports downstream tasks such as anomaly detection, procedural compliance checking, and modeling of learning behavior.
  • HOI detection models show divergent behavior on Rare versus Non-Rare interaction categories on PhysLab, making it a stress test for long-tailed interaction distributions.
  • The structured process-model metadata enables tasks beyond pure recognition, such as procedural reasoning and deviation analysis, not directly supported by earlier datasets.
  • Planned expansion to six additional physics experiments and to chemistry and biology domains would extend the benchmark to cross-disciplinary generalization tests.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the annotation quality is confirmed by independent re-annotation, the reported performance gap implies that today's action-segmentation methods rely heavily on domain-specific priors from cooking or assembly settings and will need new mechanisms for exploiting procedural structure, not just larger backbones.
  • The paper does not discuss transfer from PhysLab back to other domains; a testable extension would be whether pre-training on PhysLab improves fine-grained action recognition on other procedural datasets, since the lab domain is visually distinctive.
  • Because all videos come from a single institution's official lab manuals, the claimed diversity is within one curriculum; cross-lab and cross-institution collection would be needed to establish how far the benchmark generalizes.
  • The HOI results being higher on PhysLab than on HICO-DET while action results are lower suggests that the temporal dimension, not the spatial one, is the main source of the benchmark's difficulty; this hypothesis remains implicit in the paper and could be tested directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PhysLab, a video dataset of 620 long-form recordings of undergraduate physics experiments (approximately 31 hours), with temporal action annotations (3,873 action instances across 32 step types) and spatial annotations on 4,500 keyframes (34 object classes, 24 interaction verbs, and HOI triplets). It also reports benchmark evaluations for action alignment and action segmentation on PhysLab, Breakfast, and CrossTask, and for HOI detection on PhysLab and HICO-DET, concluding that PhysLab is more challenging and better at discriminating model performance than existing procedural datasets. The dataset and evaluation toolkit are publicly available at the provided GitHub URL.

Significance. If the annotations are reliable, PhysLab addresses a genuine gap: a domain-specific educational procedural dataset with multi-granularity temporal and spatial labels. The paper supplies baselines on two complementary tasks and compares against established benchmarks, and the internal aggregate numbers are consistent (620 videos, ~31 hours, 3,873 action instances, 4,500 keyframes). The public release plan supports reproducibility. However, the evidence for annotation quality is only qualitative, and the paper contains a clear numerical inconsistency in Table 3. These issues currently prevent the central claims about dataset quality and comparative benchmark difficulty from being fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The annotation protocol is described qualitatively as a 'multi-annotator & multi-round verification' procedure with independent labeling in ELAN, but the paper reports no quantitative inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa, boundary tolerance in seconds, or segment-level IoU) and no label-noise audit. Without such statistics, the 3,873 action instances and 4,500 frame-level labels cannot be distinguished from noisy annotations, and the benchmark comparisons in Tables 2 and 3 rest on unverified ground truth. Please add agreement measures on a subsample, a per-class error audit, or a label-noise sensitivity analysis.
  2. [Table 3] Table 3 lists OCN twice with conflicting results: row 3 reports PhysLab Full/Rare/Non-Rare values of 52.19/68.01/51.10 and row 7 reports 49.50/50.00/49.46, with corresponding differences on HICO-DET. At least one of these entries is erroneous or the table omits the experimental distinction (e.g., backbone, resolution, or number of runs). Please correct the table and clearly specify the experimental setup for every row, because the paper uses these numbers to argue that PhysLab is more challenging and that models exhibit larger inter-class disparities.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 3.2] Table 1 marks PhysLab as supporting instance segmentation (IS), occlusion restoration (OR), and procedural error annotations (PEs), but Section 3.2 only describes bounding-box annotations and HOI triplets, and no mask, occlusion, or error labels are described anywhere in the text. If these annotation types are not provided, the corresponding checkmarks should be removed and the claims about multi-granularity should be reworded; if they are provided, the annotation protocol and statistics for these layers must be documented.
  4. [Section 4] All benchmark results in Tables 2 and 3 are reported as single numbers without standard deviations, number of runs, or seed information. Given the moderate dataset size and the known sensitivity of weakly-supervised action segmentation and HOI detection methods to initialization and randomness, the claims that PhysLab yields larger performance gaps between methods and that it 'better reveals' model robustness should be supported by repeated evaluations (e.g., at least three runs) or by a variance/error-bar measure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 contains a typo: 'CorssTask' should be 'CrossTask'.
  2. [Section 4.2] The text states that '10 representative HOI detection methods' were evaluated, but Table 3 lists 12 unique methods (excluding the duplicated OCN entry). Please reconcile the count.
  3. [Section 4.1] Equations (1) and (2) are displayed without equation numbers; adding numbers will make the in-text references clearer.
  4. [References] Reference [61] has a typo in the venue name: 'New Orlean' should be 'New Orleans'.
  5. [Section 3.3] The paper states that detailed quantitative statistics are available on the open-source website, but the paper itself does not provide statistics such as class frequencies, video length distribution, or annotation counts per experiment. Please include these statistics in the paper or ensure the website is accessible and linked at the time of publication.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract in the paper's opening differs slightly from the abstract in the full text (e.g., 'limited annotation diversity' vs. 'insufficient annotation granularity'). Please ensure the camera-ready version is consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PhysLab's benchmark results are direct measurements on a new dataset, not fitted predictions; the only self-referential element—the AL-PKD baseline from the authors' prior work—is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a dataset paper, not a derivation or prediction chain. The central claim is that PhysLab is a new, multi-granularity annotated benchmark of physics experiments and that current models perform worse on it than on existing procedural datasets. That claim rests on the collected videos, the annotation protocol, and the reported evaluation numbers. None of these are defined in terms of the paper's conclusions. The action-recognition and HOI-detection benchmarks are standard evaluation procedures applied to a new testbed; the results are measurements, not quantities fitted to the data and then renamed as predictions. The ground-truth labels are anchored to external official lab manuals and produced via ELAN-based dual annotation with reconciliation, so the annotation process is not internally self-justifying. The only self-citation of note is AL-PKD [70], the authors' own weakly-supervised action learning method, used as a baseline in Table 2. This is a standard way to include a strong recent method, and the paper's difficulty claim does not reduce to AL-PKD's design; even the strongest baseline still underperforms on PhysLab relative to Breakfast and CrossTask. Thus the self-citation is not load-bearing. The internal inconsistency in Table 3, where OCN appears twice with different numbers (52.19/68.01/51.10 vs 49.50/50.00/49.46), is a correctness or reporting error that affects benchmark trustworthiness, but it is not a circularity: the numbers are not derived from the paper's own definitions. Overall, the paper is not circular; at most, a minor self-citation is present, which does not raise the circularity score beyond the 0-2 non-circular band.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented physical entities; it is a data resource. The key unstated inputs are the assumed reliability of the student annotations and the representativeness of the four experiments. These assumptions are load-bearing because all benchmark conclusions are computed against this ground truth.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The multi-annotator and multi-round verification protocol produces reliable ground-truth labels without systematic noise.
    Section 3.2 describes the annotation process but provides no inter-annotator agreement metrics, label-quality audits, or expert validation. The benchmark conclusions depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The four selected undergraduate physics experiments are representative of 'complex physics experiments' and the dataset generalizes to the broader domain.
    Section 3.1 justifies the choice by task diversity, but all videos come from one university lab environment. The central value of the benchmark relies on this representativeness.
  • domain assumption Action and object category definitions from official lab manuals are unambiguous and transferable to visual annotation.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.3 state labels are defined by official equipment specifications and experiment manuals. If manual descriptions are underspecified, the annotation hierarchy could be inconsistent across annotators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PhysLab: A Benchmark Dataset for Multi-Granularity Visual Parsing of Physics Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IEGCOEI4

@misc{pith2026250606631,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PhysLab: A Benchmark Dataset for Multi-Granularity Visual Parsing of Physics Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IEGCOEI4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06631}
}
read the original abstract

Visual parsing of images and videos is critical for a wide range of real-world applications. However, progress in this field is constrained by limitations of existing datasets: (1) insufficient annotation granularity, which impedes fine-grained scene understanding and high-level reasoning; (2) limited coverage of domains, particularly a lack of datasets tailored for educational scenarios; and (3) lack of explicit procedural guidance, with minimal logical rules and insufficient representation of structured task process. To address these gaps, we introduce PhysLab, the first video dataset that captures students conducting complex physics experiments. The dataset includes four representative experiments that feature diverse scientific instruments and rich human-object interaction (HOI) patterns. PhysLab comprises 620 long-form videos and provides multilevel annotations that support a variety of vision tasks, including action recognition, object detection, HOI analysis, etc. We establish strong baselines and perform extensive evaluations to highlight key challenges in the parsing of procedural educational videos. We expect PhysLab to serve as a valuable resource for advancing fine-grained visual parsing, facilitating intelligent classroom systems, and fostering closer integration between computer vision and educational technologies. The dataset and the evaluation toolkit are publicly available at https://github.com/ZMH-SDUST/PhysLab.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06631 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of the content of our proposed PhysLab dataset. PhysLab focuses on experimental tasks conducted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Taxonomy of experimental steps, interaction verbs, and objects in the PhysLab dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dustin Aganian, Benedict Stephan, Markus Eisenbach, Corinna Stretz, and Horst- Michael Gross. 2023. ATTACH Dataset: Annotated Two-Handed Assembly Actions for Human Action Understanding. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, London, 11367–11373

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Paul Bergmann, Michael Fauser, David Sattlegger, and Carsten Steger. 2019. MVTec AD – A Comprehensive Real-World Dataset for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE/CVF, Long Beach, 9592–9600

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Jing Bi, Jiebo Luo, and Chenliang Xu. 2021. Procedure Planning in Instructional Videos via Contextual Modeling and Model-Based Policy Learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE/CVF, Montreal, 15611–15620

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Fabian Caba Heilbron, Victor Escorcia, Bernard Ghanem, and Juan Carlos Niebles

  5. [5]

    Joao Carreira and Andrew Zisserman. 2017. Quo Vadis, Action Recognition? A New Model and the Kinetics Dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/CVF, Honolulu, 6299–6308

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Sixian Chan, Xianpeng Zeng, Xinhua Wang, Jie Hu, and Cong Bai. 2024. Auxiliary Feature Fusion and Noise Suppression for HOI Detection. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications 20, 10 (2024), 1–18

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Yu-Wei Chao, Yunfan Liu, Xieyang Liu, Huayi Zeng, and Jia Deng. 2018. Learning to Detect Human-Object Interactions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision . IEEE/CVF, Lake Tahoe, 381–389

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Junwen Chen, Yingcheng Wang, and Keiji Yanai. 2025. Focusing on what to Decode and what to Train: SOV Decoding with Specific Target Guided DeNoising and Vision Language Advisor. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision . IEEE/CVF, Tucson, 9416–9425

    work page 2025

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Grazia Cicirelli, Roberto Marani, Laura Romeo, Manuel García Domínguez, Jó- nathan Heras, Anna G Perri, and Tiziana D’Orazio. 2022. The HA4M Dataset: Multi-Modal Monitoring of an Assembly Task for Human Action Recognition in Manufacturing. Scientific Data 9, 1 (2022), 745

    2022

  2. [10]

    Dima Damen, Hazel Doughty, Giovanni Maria Farinella, Sanja Fidler, Antonino Furnari, Evangelos Kazakos, Davide Moltisanti, Jonathan Munro, Toby Perrett, Will Price, et al. 2018. Scaling Egocentric Vision: The EPIC-KITCHENS Dataset. In Proceedings of the European Conference on ...

    2018

  3. [11]

    Xueqing Deng, Qihang Yu, Peng Wang, Xiaohui Shen, and Liang-Chieh Chen

  4. [12]

    Guodong Ding, Fadime Sener, and Angela Yao. 2023. Temporal Action Segmenta- tion: An Analysis of Modern Techniques. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46, 2 (2023), 1011–1030

    2023

  5. [13]

    Reza Ghoddoosian, Isht Dwivedi, Nakul Agarwal, and Behzad Dariush. 2023. Weakly-Supervised Action Segmentation and Unseen Error Detection in Anoma- lous Instructional Videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE/CVF, Paris, 10128–10138

    2023

  6. [14]

    Saurabh Gupta and Jitendra Malik. 2015. Visual Semantic Role Labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.04474 (2015), 1–11

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Geng Han, Jiachen Zhao, Lele Zhang, and Fang Deng. 2024. A Survey of Human- Object Interaction Detection With Deep Learning. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence 9 (2024), 3–26

    2024

  8. [16]

    Da Hu, Shuai Li, and Mengjun Wang. 2023. Object Detection in Hospital Facilities: A Comprehensive Dataset and Performance Evaluation. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 123 (2023), 106223

    2023

  9. [17]

    Jiamian Hu, Hong Yuanyuan, Yihua Chen, He Wang, and Moriaki Yasuhara. 2024. Noisy Ostracods: A Fine-Grained, Imbalanced Real-World Dataset for Bench- marking Robust Machine Learning and Label Correction Methods. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 50750–50771

    2024

  10. [18]

    Yifei Huang, Guo Chen, Jilan Xu, Mingfang Zhang, Lijin Yang, Baoqi Pei, Hongjie Zhang, Lu Dong, Yali Wang, Limin Wang, et al. 2024. EgoExoLearn: A Dataset for Bridging Asynchronous Ego- and Exo-Centric View of Procedural Activities in Real World. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF...

    2024

  11. [19]

    in the Wild

    Haroon Idrees, Amir R Zamir, Yu-Gang Jiang, Alex Gorban, Ivan Laptev, Rahul Sukthankar, and Mubarak Shah. 2017. The THUMOS Challenge on Action Recognition for Videos "in the Wild". Computer Vision and Image Understanding 155 (2017), 1–23

    2017

  12. [20]

    Byeong Su Kim, Jieun Kim, Deokwoo Lee, and Beakcheol Jang. 2025. Visual Question Answering: A Survey of Methods, Datasets, Evaluation, and Challenges. Comput. Surveys 57, 10 (2025), 1–35

    2025

  13. [21]

    Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, et al. 2017. Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotations. International Journal of Com...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Hilde Kuehne, Ali Arslan, and Thomas Serre. 2014. The Language of Actions: Recovering the Syntax and Semantics of Goal-Directed Human Activities. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE/CVF, Columbus, 780–787

    2014

  15. [23]

    Hildegard Kuehne, Hueihan Jhuang, Estíbaliz Garrote, Tomaso Poggio, and Thomas Serre. 2011. HMDB: A Large Video Database for Human Motion Recogni- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE/CVF, Barcelona, 2556–2563

    2011

  16. [24]

    Alina Kuznetsova, Hassan Rom, Neil Alldrin, Jasper Uijlings, Ivan Krasin, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Shahab Kamali, Stefan Popov, Matteo Malloci, Alexander Kolesnikov, et al. 2020. The Open Images Dataset V4: Unified Image Classification, Object Detection, and Visual Relationship Detec...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ehsan Latif, Ramviyas Parasuraman, and Xiaoming Zhai. 2024. PhysicsAssistant: An LLM-Powered Interactive Learning Robot for Physics Lab Investigations. In IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication . IEEE, Pasadena, 864–871

    2024

  18. [26]

    Shih-Po Lee, Zijia Lu, Zekun Zhang, Minh Hoai, and Ehsan Elhamifar. 2024. Error Detection in Egocentric Procedural Task Videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/CVF, Seattle, 18655– 18666

    2024

  19. [27]

    Jun Li, Peng Lei, and Sinisa Todorovic. 2019. Weakly Supervised Energy-Based Learning for Action Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE/CVF, Seoul, 6243–6251

    2019

  20. [28]

    Jianwei Li, Jun Xue, Rui Cao, Xiaoxia Du, Siyu Mo, Kehao Ran, and Zeyan Zhang

  21. [29]

    Liulei Li, Jianan Wei, Wenguan Wang, and Yi Yang. 2023. Neural-Logic Human- Object Interaction Detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 21158–21171

    2023

  22. [30]

    Yue Liao, Aixi Zhang, Miao Lu, Yongliang Wang, Xiaobo Li, and Si Liu. 2022. GEN-VLKT: Simplify Association and Enhance Interaction Understanding for HOI Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE/CVF, New Orleans, 20123–20132

    2022

  23. [31]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    FineRehab: A Multi-modality and Multi-task Dataset for Rehabilitation Analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE/CVF, Seattle, 3184–3193

  24. [32]

    Lihao Liu, Yanqi Cheng, Zhongying Deng, Shujun Wang, Dongdong Chen, Xi- aowei Hu, Pietro Liò, Carola-Bibiane Schönlieb, and Angelica Aviles-Rivero. 2024. TrafficMOT: A Challenging Dataset for Multi-Object Tracking in Complex Traffic Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM In...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Yi Liu, Limin Wang, Yali Wang, Xiao Ma, and Yu Qiao. 2022. FineAction: A Fine-Grained Video Dataset for Temporal Action Localization. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 31 (2022), 6937–6950

    2022

  26. [34]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, Zurich, 740–755

    2014

  27. [35]

    Zijia Lu and Ehsan Elhamifar. 2021. Weakly-Supervised Action Segmentation and Alignment via Transcript-Aware Union-of-Subspaces Learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE/CVF, Virtual Conference, 8085–8095

    2021

  28. [36]

    Zijia Lu and Ehsan Elhamifar. 2022. Set-Supervised Action Learning in Procedural Task Videos via Pairwise Order Consistency. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/CVF, New Orleans, 19903–19913

    2022

  29. [37]

    Ziwei Liu, Zhongqi Miao, Xiaohang Zhan, Jiayun Wang, Boqing Gong, and Stella X Yu. 2019. Large-Scale Long-Tailed Recognition in an Open World. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE/CVF, Long Beach, 2537–2546

    2019

  30. [38]

    Yanwei Pang, Jiale Cao, Yazhao Li, Jin Xie, Hanqing Sun, and Jinfeng Gong

  31. [39]

    Goran Paulin and Marina Ivasic-Kos. 2023. Review and Analysis of Synthetic Dataset Generation Methods and Techniques for Application in Computer Vision. Artificial Intelligence Review 56, 9 (2023), 9221–9265. MM ’25, October 27–31, 2025, Dublin, Ireland. Minghao et al

    2023

  32. [40]

    Shuailei Ma, Yuefeng Wang, Shanze Wang, and Ying Wei. 2024. FGAHOI: Fine- Grained Anchors for Human-Object Interaction Detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46, 4 (2024), 2415–2429

    2024

  33. [41]

    James L Peterson. 1977. Petri Nets. Comput. Surveys 9, 3 (1977), 223–252

    1977

  34. [42]

    Luis S Piloto, Ari Weinstein, Peter Battaglia, and Matthew Botvinick. 2022. In- tuitive Physics Learning in a Deep-Learning Model Inspired by Developmental Psychology. Nature Human Behaviour 6, 9 (2022), 1257–1267

    2022

  35. [43]

    CFJ Pols and PJJM Dekkers. 2024. Redesigning a First Year Physics Lab Course on the Basis of the Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge in Science Model. Physical Review Physics Education Research 20, 1 (2024), 010117

    2024

  36. [44]

    Rohith Peddi, Shivvrat Arya, Bharath Challa, Likhitha Pallapothula, Akshay Vyas, Bhavya Gouripeddi, Qifan Zhang, Jikai Wang, Vasundhara Komaragiri, Eric Ragan, et al. 2024. CaptainCook4D: A Dataset for Understanding Errors in Procedural Activities. Advances in Neural Informati...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Fadime Sener, Dibyadip Chatterjee, Daniel Shelepov, Kun He, Dipika Singhania, Robert Wang, and Angela Yao. 2022. Assembly101: A Large-Scale Multi-View Video Dataset for Understanding Procedural Activities. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Patter...

    2022

  38. [46]

    Shuai Shao, Zeming Li, Tianyuan Zhang, Chao Peng, Gang Yu, Xiangyu Zhang, Jing Li, and Jian Sun. 2019. Objects365: A Large-Scale, High-Quality Dataset for Object Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE/CVF, Seoul, 8430–8439

    2019

  39. [47]

    Yuhan Shen and Ehsan Elhamifar. 2024. Progress-Aware Online Action Segmen- tation for Egocentric Procedural Task Videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/CVF, Seattle, 18186– 18197

    2024

  40. [48]

    Tim J Schoonbeek, Tim Houben, Hans Onvlee, Fons Van der Sommen, et al. 2024. Industreal: A dataset for Procedure Step Recognition Handling Execution Errors in Egocentric Videos in an Industrial-Like Setting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of C...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Zehua Sun, Qiuhong Ke, Hossein Rahmani, Mohammed Bennamoun, Gang Wang, and Jun Liu. 2022. Human Action Recognition from Various Data Modalities: A review. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45, 3 (2022), 3200–3225

    2022

  42. [50]

    Hui Li Tan, Hongyuan Zhu, Joo-Hwee Lim, and Cheston Tan. 2021. A Com- prehensive Survey of Procedural Video Datasets. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 202 (2021), 103107

    2021

  43. [51]

    Yansong Tang, Dajun Ding, Yongming Rao, Yu Zheng, Danyang Zhang, Lili Zhao, Jiwen Lu, and Jie Zhou. 2019. COIN: A Large-Scale Dataset for Comprehen- sive Instructional Video Analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/C...

    2019

  44. [52]

    Khurram Soomro, Amir Roshan Zamir, and Mubarak Shah. 2012. UCF101: A Dataset of 101 Human Actions Classes from Videos in the Wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0402 (2012), 1–7

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Chengjie Wang, Wenbing Zhu, Bin-Bin Gao, Zhenye Gan, Jiangning Zhang, Zhihao Gu, Shuguang Qian, Mingang Chen, and Lizhuang Ma. 2024. Real-IAD: A Real-World Multi-View Dataset for Benchmarking Versatile Industrial Anomaly Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on ...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Yuxiao Wang, Qi Liu, and Yu Lei. 2024. TED-Net: Dispersal Attention for Perceiv- ing Interaction Region in Indirectly-Contact HOI Detection. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 34, 7 (2024), 5603–5615

    2024

  47. [55]

    Peter Wittenburg, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann, and Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: A Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. In International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation . ELRA, Genoa, 1556–1559

    2006

  48. [56]

    Binglu Wang, Yongqiang Zhao, Le Yang, Teng Long, and Xuelong Li. 2023. Tem- poral Action Localization in the Deep Learning Era: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46, 4 (2023), 2171–2190

    2023

  49. [57]

    Songhua Yang, Hanjie Zhao, Senbin Zhu, Guangyu Zhou, Hongfei Xu, Yuxiang Jia, and Hongying Zan. 2024. Zhongjing: Enhancing the Chinese Medical Capabilities of Large Language Model through Expert Feedback and Real-World Multi-Turn Dialogue. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Jiashuo Yu, Ying Cheng, Rui-Wei Zhao, Rui Feng, and Yuejie Zhang. 2022. MM- Pyramid: Multimodal Pyramid Attentional Network for Audio-Visual Event Local- ization and Video Parsing. InProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. ACM, Lisbon, 6241–6249

    2022

  51. [59]

    Jiale Yu, Baopeng Zhang, Qirui Li, Haoyang Chen, and Zhu Teng. 2023. Hierarchi- cal Reasoning Network with Contrastive Learning for Few-Shot Human-Object Interaction Recognition. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. ACM, Ottawa, 4260–4268

    2023

  52. [60]

    Tao Wu, Runyu He, Gangshan Wu, and Limin Wang. 2024. SportsHHI: A Dataset for Human-Human Interaction Detection in Sports Videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/CVF, Seattle, 18537–18546

    2024

  53. [61]

    Frederic Z Zhang, Dylan Campbell, and Stephen Gould. 2022. Efficient Two- Stage Detection of Human-Object Interactions With a Novel Unary-Pairwise Transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE/CVF, New Orlean, 20104–20112

    2022

  54. [62]

    Frederic Z Zhang, Yuhui Yuan, Dylan Campbell, Zhuoyao Zhong, and Stephen Gould. 2023. Exploring Predicate Visual Context in Detecting of Human-Object Interactions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE/CVF, Paris, 10411–10421

    2023

  55. [63]

    Yong Zhang, Yingwei Pan, Ting Yao, Rui Huang, Tao Mei, and Chang-Wen Chen

  56. [64]

    Hangjie Yuan, Mang Wang, Dong Ni, and Liangpeng Xu. 2022. Detecting Human- Object Interactions with Object-Guided Cross-Modal Calibrated Semantics. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. AAAI, Van- couver, 3206–3214

    2022

  57. [65]

    Peilin Zhou, Bruce Leon, Xiang Ying, Can Zhang, Yifan Shao, Qichen Ye, Dading Chong, Zhiling Jin, Chenxuan Xie, Meng Cao, et al . 2025. BrowseComp-ZH: Benchmarking Web Browsing Ability of Large Language Models in Chinese. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19314 (2025), 1–14

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Wei Zhou, Hadi Amirpour, Christian Timmerer, Guangtao Zhai, Patrick Le Callet, and Alan C Bovik. 2025. Perceptual Visual Quality Assessment: Principles, Methods, and Future Directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00625 (2025), 1–6

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Xuhan Zhu, Yifei Xing, Ruiping Wang, Yaowei Wang, and Xiangyuan Lan. 2024. Calibration for Long-tailed Scene Graph Generation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . ACM, Melbourne, 3037–3046

    2024

  60. [68]

    Dimitri Zhukov, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Ramazan Gokberk Cinbis, David Fouhey, Ivan Laptev, and Josef Sivic. 2019. Cross-Task Weakly Supervised Learning From Instructional Videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/CVF, Lo...

    2019

  61. [69]

    Bolei Zhou, Hang Zhao, Xavier Puig, Sanja Fidler, Adela Barriuso, and Antonio Torralba. 2017. Scene Parsing Through ADE20K Dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/CVF, Honolulu, 633–641

    2017

  62. [70]

    Minghao Zou, Qingtian Zeng, and Xue Zhang. 2024. Weakly-Supervised Action Learning in Procedural Task Videos via Process Knowledge Decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 34, 7 (2024), 5575–5588

    2024

  63. [74]

    Cheng Zou, Bohan Wang, Yue Hu, Junqi Liu, Qian Wu, Yu Zhao, Boxun Li, Chen- guang Zhang, Chi Zhang, Yichen Wei, et al. 2021. End-to-End Human Object Interaction Detection with HOI Transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogniti...

    2021

  64. [2015]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    ActivityNet: A Large-Scale Video Benchmark for Human Activity Under- standing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE/CVF, Boston, 961–970

  65. [2020]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 30 (2020), 207–219

    TJU-DHD: A Diverse High-Resolution Dataset for Object Detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 30 (2020), 207–219

    2020

  66. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Exploring Structure-Aware Transformer Over Interaction Proposals for Human-Object Interaction Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/CVF, New Orleans, 19548– 19557

  67. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    COCONut: Modernizing COCO Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE/CVF, Seattle, 21863–21873

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.