Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

The third Micro-Action Analysis Grand Challenge introduces a fine-grained understanding track in which multimodal large language models are evaluated on 1,000 videos and 12,000 questions spanning perception, comprehension, and reasoning.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 07:35 UTC pith:UAOZQA2X

load-bearing objection A useful challenge report whose Track 3 credibility rests on an unvalidated same-group benchmark and an undisclosed LLM-judge weighting; worth publishing if that gap is acknowledged. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16284 v1 pith:UAOZQA2X submitted 2026-07-10 cs.CV cs.MM

MAC 2026: Advancing Micro-Action Analysis Towards Fine-Grained Understanding

Kun Li , Dan Guo , Jihao Gu , Pengyu Liu , Xiaobai Li , Haoyu Chen , Yanbin Hao , Guoying Zhao
show 1 more author
Meng Wang
This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.MM
keywords micro-action recognitionmulti-label micro-action detectionfine-grained micro-action understandingmultimodal large language modelsvideo understandingbenchmark challengeMA-Benchperception-comprehension-reasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper presents the third edition of a public benchmark series for micro-action analysis, and its central claim is that the field should move beyond recognizing and localizing micro-actions to fine-grained understanding of them. To that end it introduces a new challenge track in which multimodal large language models must answer 12,000 questions about 1,000 videos, organized into eight sub-tasks spanning perception, comprehension, and reasoning. The paper also reports the track protocols, the weighted evaluation score, the leaderboard results, and the methods of the leading teams. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's contribution to be a reusable evaluation platform: if the benchmark is valid, future micro-action models can be compared not only on labels but on whether they can describe, relate, and explain subtle human body motion.

Core claim

The paper's discovery is the definition and protocol for a new task, Fine-grained Micro-Action Understanding (FMAU), built around MA-Bench, a benchmark of 1,000 videos and 12,000 question–answer pairs. The task is structured in three levels—perceptual recognition, relational comprehension, and interpretive reasoning—and decomposed into eight sub-tasks: coarse and fine action recognition, local motion, multi-part relations, temporal order, proximity changes, description, and reasoning. Six sub-tasks are scored by exact-match accuracy, while the two open-ended sub-tasks are scored by a multimodal LLM judge, and the final ranking combines these into a weighted score. The paper reports the resul

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is MA-Bench, the fine-grained micro-action benchmark with 1,000 videos and 12,000 question–answer pairs, organized along a Perception–Comprehension–Reasoning axis and split into eight sub-tasks: coarse and fine action recognition, local motion, multi-part relations, temporal order, proximity changes, description, and reasoning. The evaluation machinery is a weighted score that combines exact-match accuracy on six closed-ended sub-tasks with LLM-judge quality ratings on the two open-ended ones; the judge is a commercially available multimodal LLM. MA-Bench is what turns the challenge's slogan—moving from recognition to understanding—into a measurable protocol, because

Load-bearing premise

That the 12,000 question–answer pairs in MA-Bench really require fine-grained understanding of micro-actions, and that the LLM judge's scores on open-ended answers match what human experts would give.

What would settle it

Take a held-out set of open-ended answers from Track 3, have human annotators score them with the same rubric, and compare with the LLM judge: low inter-rater agreement, or a text-only model that answers the closed-ended sub-tasks correctly without seeing the videos, would show that the leaderboard measures something other than video-based fine-grained micro-action understanding.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Future MAC editions can reuse the Track 3 protocol, giving the micro-action community a stable public yardstick for measuring understanding rather than only label accuracy.
  • The three-level Perception–Comprehension–Reasoning structure provides a template for designing LLM-based evaluation of other subtle human behaviors, such as micro-gestures and micro-expressions.
  • The leading solutions show that fixed multimodal LLMs can be steered toward better micro-action understanding through prompt orchestration and error-driven prompt revision, without retraining.
  • The benchmark creates pressure for models to ground their explanations in visible motion evidence, body-part trajectories, and temporal phases, rather than matching a label set.
  • If Track 3's scores reflect genuine understanding, they provide a baseline that future video-focused multimodal LLMs can be compared against.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A text-only baseline—an LLM given only question text or transcripts, without video—could test whether the closed-ended sub-tasks are truly grounded in visual micro-actions; the paper does not report such a control.
  • If the LLM judge's ratings align with human raters on a labeled sample, the open-ended sub-tasks could support fully automatic evaluation of reasoning; the paper provides no human agreement statistics for the judge.
  • The same benchmark could be extended to emotion-aware micro-action understanding, which the paper lists as a future direction, by adding questions that tie body motion to affective state and social intention.
  • Because the benchmark and the challenge are produced by the same organizing group, independent replication of MA-Bench's question construction and scoring would strengthen the platform's external validity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports the 3rd Micro-Action Analysis Grand Challenge (MAC 2026), held with ACM Multimedia 2026. It describes three tracks: Track 1 (micro-action recognition on MA-52), Track 2 (multi-label micro-action detection on MMA-52), and Track 3 (fine-grained micro-action understanding on MA-Bench, a new task evaluated with multimodal large language models). For each track the paper gives the dataset, protocol, metric, leaderboard results, and summaries of the top teams' solutions. The central new claim is that Track 3 moves micro-action analysis beyond recognition and detection to fine-grained understanding, assessed via MLLMs on perceptual, relational, and reasoning sub-tasks.

Significance. If the Track 3 evaluation is valid, the paper provides a new public benchmark task for a timely direction: using MLLMs for fine-grained micro-action understanding. The first two tracks consolidate existing benchmark infrastructure and the paper is useful as a concise record of the competition. The concrete strengths are the public datasets, explicit evaluation protocols, and the reporting of leaderboard results and solution sketches. However, the significance is currently limited by the lack of validation for the Track 3 evaluation instrument: the GPT-4o judge has no reported human agreement, the weighting formula is undisclosed, and the benchmark MA-Bench originates from the same organizing group without independent construct-validity evidence. These gaps directly affect the paper's central claim, so the contribution as written is conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Track 3] The Track 3 protocol says the final ranking is determined by a 'weighted score combining the results from both task types', but no formula, weights, or aggregation method is given. Table 1 reports only the weighted score (57.16 vs 46.29), making the leaderboard irreproducible and the relative influence of closed-ended accuracy vs. GPT-4o judgments impossible to assess. Please specify the exact weighting and aggregation, or provide a sensitivity analysis.
  2. [§2.4, Track 3 (MADU/MARE)] GPT-4o is used as the sole judge for the two open-ended sub-tasks. No human-rating correlation, inter-judge agreement, or validation against human judgments is reported. Without this, the open-ended scores could reflect prompt-format matching, rubric artifacts, or stylistic preferences rather than micro-action understanding. Since the abstract claims Track 3 assesses the 'ability to capture fine-grained semantic cues and interpret subtle human micro-actions at a deeper level', this is a load-bearing validity gap. Please report a human evaluation on a subset or an independent second judge with agreement metrics.
  3. [§2.2, Track 3 / Ref. [18]] Track 3 relies entirely on MA-Bench, created by the same organizing group. The paper does not report evidence that the eight sub-tasks require relational or reasoning understanding beyond label prediction — e.g., chance-level performance, human performance, or per-sub-task ablations. This is not a derivation-level circularity, but it is an internal-validity concern: the construct validity of the benchmark is asserted rather than demonstrated. Please add such evidence or cite it explicitly from [18].
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (1)] The notation 'F1_body_macro', 'F1_body_micro', etc., is not defined. Clarify whether these are macro- and micro-averaged F1 scores over classes, and how the two label hierarchies are combined.
  2. [Table 1] Only two teams are listed for Track 3, while the text mentions 52 registered teams overall. State how many teams submitted valid results in each track, or note that only the top teams are shown, to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§2.1, Track 3] The term 'MLLMs' is used without expansion at the first occurrence in the body; the abstract expands it, but the full term should appear in the introduction or Section 2.1 for self-containedness.
  4. [Figure 7 and Figure 8] The figure captions are very brief and include informal fragments (e.g., '10 10 frames t timestamps A answer format'). Please expand captions to make the pipelines understandable without the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: MAC 2026 is a challenge-overview paper whose results come from external teams; the same-group MA-Bench citation is a public benchmark, not a fitted input or derived prediction.

full rationale

This paper is a benchmark/challenge report, not a derivation. There are no equations that reduce a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter, no ansatz imported via citation, and no uniqueness theorem invoked by the same authors to force a choice. The central new component, Track 3, adopts MA-Bench [18], which is co-authored by members of the organizing group. This is self-citation, but it is not load-bearing in a circular sense: MA-Bench is a publicly available, externally inspectable benchmark with fixed videos and question-answer pairs, and the leaderboard results were produced by 52 external teams under a fixed protocol. The paper does not fit parameters to MA-Bench and then claim to predict those same answers; it simply reports the outcomes of running teams' models on the benchmark. The lack of reported human validation for the GPT-4o judge and the undisclosed weighting between closed-ended and open-ended scores are evaluation-validity concerns, not circularity-by-construction. Therefore, no circular step meeting the required evidentiary standard is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper makes no mathematical derivation, so the free-parameter and axiom ledger is short. The only hand-chosen quantity affecting the headline result is the undisclosed weighting in the Track 3 final score; the main load-bearing assumptions concern the validity of the same-group benchmark and the GPT-4o judge used to evaluate it.

free parameters (1)
  • Track-3 weighted-score weights = not specified
    The final Track 3 ranking is determined by 'a weighted score combining the results from both task types' (§2.4), but the weights, normalization, and the relative contribution of closed-ended accuracy vs. GPT-4o judge scores are not disclosed. This hand-chosen weighting directly determines the reported rankings.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Micro-actions are subtle, spontaneous body movements closely linked to inner psychological and emotional states.
    Stated in the Introduction to motivate the benchmark; no independent evidence is reviewed in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper MA-Bench's 1,000 videos and 12,000 question-answer pairs validly operationalize fine-grained micro-action understanding across its eight sub-tasks.
    Track 3's entire evaluation is built on MA-Bench [18], which is by the same organizing group; validity is asserted by citation rather than demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o judge scores for open-ended MADU and MARE tasks are a reliable proxy for human judgment.
    Used in §2.4 as the official metric for open-ended answers; no inter-judge agreement, human correlation, or prompt-variation analysis is reported.
  • domain assumption The Kaggle registration and submission process enforces fair, single-submission evaluation.
    §2.3 describes the protocol, but the paper does not report checks for multiple submissions, account sharing, or other potential leaderboard manipulation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9411 in / 12170 out tokens · 132548 ms · 2026-08-02T07:35:40.725601+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MAC 2026: Advancing Micro-Action Analysis Towards Fine-Grained Understanding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UAOZQA2X

@misc{pith2026260716284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MAC 2026: Advancing Micro-Action Analysis Towards Fine-Grained Understanding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UAOZQA2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16284}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Micro-Actions (MAs) are subtle and spontaneous human behaviors that provide important non-verbal cues in social interaction and affective communication. However, their short duration, weak motion patterns, and fine-grained semantic differences make them difficult to annotate, model, and evaluate in a standardized manner. To promote academic research on micro-action analysis, we proposed and have annually organized the Micro-Action Analysis Grand Challenge (MAC) as a public benchmark platform for this emerging field. The first two editions of MAC established standardized evaluation settings for micro-action recognition and detection, providing publicly accessible datasets and protocols. Building upon these editions, this paper presents the 3rd MAC, held in conjunction with ACM Multimedia 2026. Under the theme of moving from recognition to fine-grained micro-action understanding, this edition further expands the scope of the challenge beyond conventional recognition and detection. In particular, we introduce a new task named fine-grained micro-action understanding, evaluated with the assistance of multimodal large language models, aiming to assess models' ability to capture fine-grained semantic cues and interpret subtle human micro-actions at a deeper level. We summarize the datasets, task settings, evaluation protocols, competition results, and representative solutions from top-performing teams. Finally, we discuss future directions for micro-action analysis and its broader role in human-centric video understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16284 by Dan Guo, Guoying Zhao, Haoyu Chen, Jihao Gu, Kun Li, Meng Wang, Pengyu Liu, Xiaobai Li, Yanbin Hao.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Solution of team salaheiyo1 for Track 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Solution of team HITWH for Track 1. 3.1 Micro-Action Recognition ❶ Team “USTC-IAT-United2” is from the University of Science and Technology of China. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Solution of team WHU-HUVPR for Track 3. Evidence-controlled inference Error-to-rule update Evidence pack Frozen MLLM OK OK NO Predictions x x x Wrong set Error rules OK Updated prompt human-verified next task prompt Evidence controls 10 10 frames t timestamps A answer format Task-specific rule families CMAR/FMAR body SAD part MAD overlap MAS onset PPR dist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Solution of the team GNC for Track 3. 3.3 Fine-grained Micro-Action Understanding ❶ Team “WHU-HUVPR” is from Wuhan University. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Hillel Aviezer, Yaacov Trope, and Alexander Todorov. 2012. Body cues, not facial expressions, discriminate between intense positive and negative emotions. Science338, 6111 (2012), 1225–1229

    2012

  2. [2]

    Adrien Bardes, Quentin Garrido, Jean Ponce, Xinlei Chen, Michael Rabbat, Yann LeCun, Mahmoud Assran, and Nicolas Ballas. 2024. Revisiting feature prediction for learning visual representations from video.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08471 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Gedas Bertasius, Heng Wang, and Lorenzo Torresani. 2021. Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding?. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, Vol. 2. 4

    2021

  4. [4]

    Navaneeth Bodla, Bharat Singh, Rama Chellappa, and Larry S Davis. 2017. Soft- NMS–improving object detection with one line of code. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 5561–5569

    2017

  5. [5]

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

    2017

  6. [6]

    Guoliang Chen, Fei Wang, Kun Li, Zhiliang Wu, Hehe Fan, Yi Yang, Meng Wang, and Dan Guo. 2024. Prototype learning for micro-gesture classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03097(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Haoyu Chen, Björn W Schuller, Ehsan Adeli, and Guoying Zhao. 2024. The 2nd Challenge on Micro-gesture Analysis for Hidden Emotion Understanding (MiGA) 2024: Dataset and Results. InMiGA 2024: Proceedings of IJCAI 2024 Work- shop&Challenge on Micro-gesture Analysis for Hidden Emotion Understanding (MiGA 2024) co-located with 33rd International Joint Confere...

    2024

  8. [8]

    Haoyu Chen, Henglin Shi, Xin Liu, Xiaobai Li, and Guoying Zhao. 2023. SMG: A micro-gesture dataset towards spontaneous body gestures for emotional stress state analysis.International Journal of Computer Vision131, 6 (2023), 1346–1366

    2023

  9. [9]

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

    2022

  10. [10]

    1969.The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding

    Paul Ekman, Wallace V Friesen, et al. 1969.The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Vol. 1. Mouton de Gruyter Berlin

    1969

  11. [11]

    Fan Gong, Jialiang Chen, Jiajun Zhu, Qijian Bao, Fei Gao, Renshu Gu, and Gang Xu. 2024. Micro-action recognition via hierarchical fusion and inference. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 11327– 11332

    2024

  12. [12]

    Jihao Gu, Kun Li, Fei Wang, Yanyan Wei, Zhiliang Wu, Hehe Fan, and Meng Wang

  13. [13]

    Jihao Gu, Fei Wang, Kun Li, Zhiliang Wu, and Dan Guo. 2025. MM-Gesture: Towards Precise Micro-Gesture Recognition through Multimodal Fusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08344(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Dan Guo, Kun Li, Bin Hu, Yan Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2024. Benchmarking Micro-action Recognition: Dataset, Methods, and Applications.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology34, 7 (2024), 6238–6252

    2024

  15. [15]

    Dan Guo, Xiaobai Li, Kun Li, Haoyu Chen, Jingjing Hu, Guoying Zhao, Yi Yang, and Meng Wang. 2024. MAC 2024: Micro-Action Analysis Grand Challenge. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 11304– 11305

    2024

  16. [16]

    Xiaochuan Guo, Jihao Gu, Haixu Liu, Yuxin Liu, Qi Wang, Yufei Wang, Fei Wang, Kun Li, and Dan Guo. 2026. Rethinking the Role of Feature Engineering and Learning Strategies in Few-Shot Hidden Emotion Recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.31249(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Rawal Khirodkar, Timur Bagautdinov, Julieta Martinez, Su Zhaoen, Austin James, Peter Selednik, Stuart Anderson, and Shunsuke Saito. 2024. Sapiens: Foundation for human vision models. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 206–228

    2024

  18. [18]

    Kun Li, Jihao Gu, Fei Wang, Zhiliang Wu, Hehe Fan, and Dan Guo. 2026. Ma- bench: Towards fine-grained micro-action understanding. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 20118–20128

    2026

  19. [19]

    Kun Li, Dan Guo, Guoliang Chen, Chunxiao Fan, Jingyuan Xu, Zhiliang Wu, Hehe Fan, and Meng Wang. 2025. Prototypical calibrating ambiguous samples for micro-action recognition. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39. 4815–4823

    2025

  20. [20]

    Kun Li, Dan Guo, Guoliang Chen, Feiyang Liu, and Meng Wang. 2023. Data Augmentation for Human Behavior Analysis in Multi-Person Conversations. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 9516–9520

    2023

  21. [21]

    Kun Li, Dan Guo, Guoliang Chen, Xinge Peng, and Meng Wang. 2023. Joint skeletal and semantic embedding loss for micro-gesture classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10624(2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Kun Li, Dan Guo, Xiaobai Li, Haoyu Chen, Pengyu Liu, Fei Wang, Jingjing Hu, Guoying Zhao, and Meng Wang. 2025. MAC 2025: The 2nd Micro-Action Analysis Grand Challenge. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    2025

  23. [23]

    Kun Li, Pengyu Liu, Dan Guo, Fei Wang, Zhiliang Wu, Hehe Fan, and Meng Wang

  24. [24]

    Kun Li, Xinge Peng, Dan Guo, Xun Yang, and Meng Wang. 2025. Repetitive Action Counting with Hybrid Temporal Relation Modeling.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia27 (2025), 3844–3855

    2025

  25. [25]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    MMAD: Multi-label Micro-Action Detection in Videos. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

  26. [26]

    Qiankun Li, Xiaolong Huang, Huabao Chen, Feng He, Qiupu Chen, and Zengfu Wang. 2024. Advancing micro-action recognition with multi-auxiliary heads and hybrid loss optimization. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 11313–11319

    2024

  27. [27]

    Qiankun Li, Qiupi Chen, Huabao Chen, Feng He, Depeng Li, and Zhigang Zeng

  28. [28]

    InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Progressive Large-Scale Modeling via Temporal-Spatial Focus Connector for Micro-Action Recognition. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

  29. [29]

    Pengyu Liu, Kun Li, Fei Wang, Yanyan Wei, Junhui She, and Dan Guo. 2025. On- line Micro-gesture Recognition Using Data Augmentation and Spatial-Temporal Attention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09512(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Qiankun Li, Xiaolong Huang, Zhifan Wan, Lanqing Hu, Shuzhe Wu, Jie Zhang, Shiguang Shan, and Zengfu Wang. 2023. Data-efficient masked video modeling for self-supervised action recognition. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 2723–2733

    2023

  31. [31]

    Xiaobai Li, Xiaopeng Hong, Antti Moilanen, Xiaohua Huang, Tomas Pfister, Guoying Zhao, and Matti Pietikäinen. 2017. Towards reading hidden emotions: A comparative study of spontaneous micro-expression spotting and recognition methods.IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing9, 4 (2017), 563–577

    2017

  32. [32]

    Tingyi Liu, Kun Li, Fei Wang, Junjie Chen, Zhiliang Wu, Jihao Gu, Haixu Liu, and Dan Guo. 2026. Self-supervised Learning Matters: A Simple Ensemble Solution for Micro-Gesture Recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09261(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Pengyu Liu, Fei Wang, Kun Li, Guoliang Chen, Yanyan Wei, Shengeng Tang, Zhiliang Wu, and Dan Guo. 2024. Micro-gesture Online Recognition using Learnable Query Points.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04490(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Shuming Liu, Chen-Lin Zhang, Chen Zhao, and Bernard Ghanem. 2024. End- to-end temporal action detection with 1b parameters across 1000 frames. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 18591–18601

    2024

  35. [35]

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. 2015. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks.Advances in neural information processing systems28 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    Xin Liu, Henglin Shi, Haoyu Chen, Zitong Yu, Xiaobai Li, and Guoying Zhao

  37. [37]

    Xucheng Shen, Kun Li, Fei Wang, Wei Qian, Jin Jiang, and Dan Guo. 2026. Spatial- Temporal Decoupled Adapter for Micro-gesture Online Recognition.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07355(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Ze Liu, Jia Ning, Yue Cao, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Han Hu

  39. [39]

    Zhan Tong, Yibing Song, Jue Wang, and Limin Wang. 2022. Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems35 (2022), 10078–10093

    2022

  40. [40]

    Chengyan Wang, Haoyu Chen, Hui Wei, Yueyi Yang, Yunquan Chen, and Guoying Zhao. 2026. imigue-3k: A large-scale benchmark for micro-gesture analysis with self-supervised learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.17179(2026). MM ’26, November 10–14, 2026, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Kun Li et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    István Sárándi and Gerard Pons-Moll. 2024. Neural localizer fields for continuous 3d human pose and shape estimation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 140032–140065

    2024

  42. [42]

    Chen Wang, Xun Mei, and Feng Zhang. 2024. Instance-aware fine-grained micro- action recognition. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 11320–11326

    2024

  43. [43]

    Maggie Shiffrar, Martha D Kaiser, and Areti Chouchourelou. 2011. Seeing human movement as inherently social.The Science of Social Vision(2011), 248–264

    2011

  44. [44]

    Limin Wang, Bingkun Huang, Zhiyu Zhao, Zhan Tong, Yinan He, Yi Wang, Yali Wang, and Yu Qiao. 2023. Videomae v2: Scaling video masked autoencoders with dual masking. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 14549–14560

    2023

  45. [45]

    Limin Wang, Yuanjun Xiong, Zhe Wang, Yu Qiao, Dahua Lin, Xiaoou Tang, and Luc Van Gool. 2016. Temporal segment networks: Towards good practices for deep action recognition. InProceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision. 20–36

    2016

  46. [46]

    Chuang Wang, Weidong Chen, Xu Cui, Yiming Zhao, Zhaobo Qi, Pengqi Huang, Xinyan Liu, and Weigang Zhang. 2025. Combatting Data Imbalance and Noise in Micro-Action Recognition. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    2025

  47. [47]

    Wen-Jing Yan, Xiaobai Li, Su-Jing Wang, Guoying Zhao, Yong-Jin Liu, Yu-Hsin Chen, and Xiaolan Fu. 2014. CASME II: An improved spontaneous micro- expression database and the baseline evaluation.PloS one9, 1 (2014), e86041

    2014

  48. [48]

    Fei Wang, Kun Li, Yiqi Nie, Zhangling Duan, Peng Zou, Zhiliang Wu, Yuwei Wang, and Yanyan Wei. 2025. Exploiting ensemble learning for cross-view isolated sign language recognition. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference

    2025

  49. [49]

    Chen-Lin Zhang, Jianxin Wu, and Yin Li. 2022. Actionformer: Localizing moments of actions with transformers. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 492–510

    2022

  50. [50]

    Guoying Zhao, Xiaobai Li, Yante Li, and Matti Pietikäinen. 2023. Facial micro- expressions: An overview.Proc. IEEE111, 10 (2023), 1215–1235

    2023

  51. [51]

    Yi Wang, Xinhao Li, Ziang Yan, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Xiangyu Zeng, Chenting Wang, Changlian Ma, Haian Huang, Jianfei Gao, et al . 2025. Internvideo2. 5: Empowering video mllms with long and rich context modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12386(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    Jun Yu, Mohan Jing, Guopeng Zhao, Keda Lu, Yifan Wang, Feng Zhao, Jiaqing Sun, Qingsong Liu, and Jiaen Liang. 2024. End-to-end Spatio-Temporal Informa- tion Aggregation For Micro-Action Detection. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 11306–11312

    2024

  53. [56]

    Jiaqi Zhao, Fei Wang, Kun Li, Yanyan Wei, Shengeng Tang, Shu Zhao, and Xiao Sun. 2025. Temporal-Frequency State Space Duality: An Efficient Paradigm for Speech Emotion Recognition. InICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. 1–5

    2025

  54. [2021]

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

    imigue: An identity-free video dataset for micro-gesture understanding and emotion analysis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10631–10642

  55. [2022]

    InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Video swin transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 3202–3211

  56. [2025]

    InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Motion matters: Motion-guided modulation network for skeleton-based micro-action recognition. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 5461–5470