Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Autonomous Telerehabilitation via Skeletal Motion Prediction and Joint-Level Performance Assessment

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a two-module pipeline on marker-free RGB video can label a rehabilitation exercise as correct or incorrect and, in parallel, produce per-joint deviation maps by comparing predicted and observed skeletons.

desk verdict Honest, well-scoped paper whose central integrated-pipeline claim is untested: the motion predictor has never run on marker-free pose estimates, and the only new result is one classifier benchmark on PROZIS squats. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12145 v1 pith:ZEUZ5TRH submitted 2026-08-12 cs.CV cs.LG

Lara Pereira , João Ruivo Paulo , Pedro Santos , Paulo Peixoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords telerehabilitationexercisequalityassessmenthumanmotionpredictionskeleton-basedactionrecognitionMMD-NCAmetriclearningjoint-levelfeedbackmarker-freeRGBvideoposeforecasting
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 is trying to establish that a rehabilitation coach can be built from two complementary perception modules working on ordinary RGB video: one that labels each repetition as correctly or incorrectly executed, and one that predicts how the skeleton should move a fraction of a second ahead and turns the difference between predicted and actual joint positions into spatially localized feedback. If the claim holds, home-based patients could receive per-repetition quality labels plus a color-coded joint-level overlay indicating where their movement deviates, without marker suits or a therapist in the room. The system's numbers come from two separate benchmarks: 96.45% mean-class accuracy on squat sequences and a mean per-joint prediction error of 75.8 mm at a 560 ms horizon. The paper is explicit that this is a technical feasibility result, not a clinically validated feedback system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-joint position error (JPE), the per-joint, per-frame Euclidean distance between predicted and observed 3D skeleton positions defined in Eq. (8). It converts a motion-prediction model into a feedback generator by localizing deviation in space and time. On the classification side, the mechanism is a self-attentive BiLSTM trained with the MMD-NCA loss of Eq. (5), which measures distributional divergence between class embedding distributions via maximum mean discrepancy with a Gaussian kernel mixture; this yields tempo-robust holistic quality labels. On the prediction side, the mechanism is the STARS generative model built on an STS-GCN backbone, operating in the DCT frequency domain with learnable spatial and temporal anchors and kinematic-tree-guided adjacency pruning; its predicted trajectories fill the JPE map.

What would settle it

Collect a set of exercise repetitions with both therapist fault labels and the system's predicted-vs-observed per-joint errors: if the red-threshold joints do not match the joints therapists flag, or if clearly faulty movements produce no elevation in JPE, the central feedback claim is refuted. A simpler check is to measure whether JPE stays low for correct repetitions across the full prediction horizon; if it rises sharply even for correct motion, the overlay would mislead users.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that rehabilitation feedback can be decomposed into two complementary signals—a holistic correct/incorrect exercise label and a spatially localized per-joint deviation map—and that both can be generated from marker-free RGB video. The exercise-quality module classifies full squat repetitions with 96.45% mean-class accuracy on the PROZIS dataset, using a self-attentive bidirectional LSTM trained with MMD-NCA metric learning. The prediction module adopts STARS, a generative graph-based motion predictor, which reaches a mean MPJPE of 75.8 mm at 560 ms on Human3.6M and outperforms graph and recurrent baselines at every tested horizon. The per-joint position error $L_{\mathrm{JPE}}(v,k)$, Eq. (8), between predicted and observed skeletons is thresholded into green/yellow/orange/red overlays. The paper is explicit that this establishes technical feasibility of the components, not a clinically validated feedback system.

Load-bearing premise

The entire feedback layer rests on the assumption that the per-joint difference between a predicted pose and the pose the user actually makes corresponds to a movement fault a therapist would flag; the paper states this signal has not been validated against therapist-annotated deviations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A patient at home could receive per-repetition feedback stating both whether a repetition was correctly executed and which joints deviated, using only an ordinary camera.
  • The classifier's 96.45% accuracy on squats indicates that the metric-learning approach works on rehabilitation data when enough balanced sequences are available, while the paper's own convergence failures set a data requirement of several hundred balanced sequences per exercise class.
  • The STARS predictor's advantage over graph and recurrent baselines at all horizons up to 1000 ms means the anchor-based generative formulation can supply joint-level error signals over the time range relevant for exercise feedback.
  • Tempo robustness is supported by subsampling a walking sequence to 50% and 25% of its original frame rate without retraining or dynamic time warping, suggesting the feedback can tolerate the slower execution common in rehabilitation.
  • Because end-to-end inference takes 2 to 5 seconds, the system is suited to per-repetition feedback, and the paper recommends buffering at least 10 frames, or 400 ms, of active movement before activating the overlay.
  • The two modules are validated separately, so the paper's claim is about component feasibility; end-to-end evaluation on a single rehabilitation dataset remains future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If JPE is later validated against physiotherapist-annotated faults, the same two-module skeleton could generate feedback for exercises beyond squats and walking, provided a motion prior can be learned for each exercise.
  • The feedback semantics could be sharpened by conditioning the motion predictor on the quality label, so the system compares the user's motion against a predicted correct trajectory rather than against the user's own observed trajectory.
  • A testable extension is to replace the observed ground-truth trajectory in Eq. (8) with a therapist-approved ideal trajectory; if prediction error against that ideal correlates with clinician ratings better than prediction error against observed motion, the feedback signal becomes clinically meaningful.
  • The gap that forces separate evaluation—PROZIS lacking kinematic-tree metadata and Human3.6M lacking rehabilitation annotations—could be closed by adding kinematic skeletons and therapist labels to rehabilitation exercise videos, enabling an end-to-end test of the whole feedback loop.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-module telerehabilitation pipeline that takes marker-free RGB video, extracts skeletons, and combines (i) a self-attentive BiLSTM with MMD-NCA metric learning for holistic correct/incorrect exercise classification and (ii) a graph-based motion predictor whose per-joint position error (JPE, Eq. 8) is color-coded into spatially localized joint-level feedback. The classifier is evaluated on squat sequences from the proprietary PROZIS dataset and reported at 96.45% mean-class accuracy; the motion-prediction module is represented by literature-reported STARS results on Human3.6M (75.8 mm MPJPE at 560 ms) and by a qualitative STS-GCN-based feedback demonstration on a walking sequence. The paper explicitly positions the work as component-level feasibility and lists as future work end-to-end integration, clinical validation of the JPE signal, and evaluation with users and therapists (Section VIII).

Significance. The architectural blueprint is reasonable and, if the component results were fully supported, would be a useful step toward automated, marker-free rehabilitation feedback. The paper is honest about its limitations and provides training/validation curves for the squat classifier, which is a concrete piece of evidence. However, the evidence currently falls short of the system-level claim: the headline motion-prediction numbers are quoted from prior work rather than reproduced, the feedback signal is demonstrated only on ground-truth Vicon skeletons, and the JPE signal is acknowledged to lack therapist-annotation validation. These gaps are load-bearing because the paper's claimed contribution is the integration of quality labels and joint-level deviation signals from marker-free video. Because the missing experiments and claim qualification are within reach of a revision, the work is potentially publishable, but the current manuscript overstates what has been demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [VII.D, Table II, and VII.E] Table II is explicitly described as 'as presented in [12]' and Section VII.D states that the STARS benchmark is taken from [12]; no STARS training, inference, or reproduced evaluation is reported in this paper. The abstract and conclusion nevertheless present the 75.8 mm MPJPE at 560 ms as a result of the proposed system. Furthermore, the qualitative feedback demonstration in Section VII.E uses STS-GCN, not the STARS model adopted in Section V.C, so the behavior of the actual predictor inside the feedback loop is never demonstrated. Please either report a reproduced STARS evaluation on Human3.6M or clearly label these values as literature-reported in every summary, and either run the feedback visualization with STARS or explicitly state that the demonstration uses a surrogate model.
  2. [III, V.D, VI.B, and VII.E] The pipeline in Section III specifies MediaPipe/OpenPose skeletons from marker-free RGB video, and Eq. (8) computes JPE between predicted and observed poses, so pose-estimation noise directly enters the joint-level feedback signal. No experiment exercises the predictor under this marker-free condition: the only predictor-on-video evidence is Section VII.E, which uses ground-truth Vicon skeletons from Human3.6M, and PROZIS cannot support graph-based predictors because it lacks kinematic-tree metadata (Section VI.B). Since typical monocular 3D pose estimation error at distal joints is on the order of the long-horizon MPJPE values in Table II, the claimed marker-free joint-level feedback is not established. Please add an experiment with noisy or pose-estimator-derived skeletons (for example, running MediaPipe or OpenPose on Human3.6M RGB frames, or adding calibrated noise to the input skeletons) and report how JPE and the color-coded overlays are affected.
  3. [VII.C and Fig. 2] The 96.45% mean-class accuracy on squats is the headline classification result, but it comes from a single 70/15/15 split of a proprietary dataset with no cross-validation, confidence intervals, or per-class sample breakdown. The companion classes with 70-300 samples fail to converge, so the reliability of the squat result is unclear. Please provide repeated-split or cross-validated statistics with error bars, a per-class performance table, and details of the class distribution; if such statistics are unavailable, the claim should be explicitly downgraded to a single-split feasibility observation.
  4. [V.D and VIII] The paper itself states in Section VIII that the joint-level error signal is derived from motion-prediction error rather than therapist-annotated deviation ground truth and has not been clinically validated. Because the title and abstract present 'joint-level performance assessment' as a contribution, this is a load-bearing limitation rather than merely future work. The manuscript should either reframe the contribution as a candidate visualization mechanism that is not yet shown to correspond to clinically meaningful deviations, or add a small expert-annotation comparison (even on a handful of sequences) to connect JPE magnitude to therapist judgment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV.C, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is hard to parse: X and X^+ are both described as samples from the same action category, and the anchor argument in f(.) is not clear. Please define whether f(X) denotes the embedding of a single sample or of a sample set, and align the notation with the text explaining the loss.
  2. [III] The claim that interpolation 'was also evaluated but yielded marginally inferior results (≤2 percentage points in mean-class accuracy)' is not supported by any table or quantitative comparison in Section VII. Please report this comparison or remove the claim.
  3. [IV.A, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The layer-normalization equations use the symbol g_{c,j}^t without defining it, so the mean and variance computation in Eq. (1) is not reproducible. Please define all quantities in the equations.
  4. [Table I caption] Table I reproduces FPR values from Coskun et al. [5], but the caption does not say so, unlike Table II. Please add a caption note so that readers can distinguish reproduced numbers from new experimental results.
  5. [VII.E and Figs. 3-4] The color thresholds that map JPE to green/yellow/orange/red are never stated. Since the color-coded overlay is central to the feedback claim, please report the threshold values used in the figures and state whether they are fixed or data-dependent.
  6. [VII.E] The speed-robustness experiment with 50% and 25% subsampling is purely qualitative; no error values are reported for the subsampled variants. Please include quantitative JPE or MPJPE comparisons, even at the sequence level, to support the tempo-invariance claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: headline results rest on external benchmarks and explicit limitation statements, not on the system validating itself.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined by the review protocol. The two headline benchmark numbers rest on external work with no author overlap: Table I is explicitly reported 'AS REPORTED BY COSKUN et al. [5]' and Table II is 'as presented in [12]' / 'presented in [11]', while the PROZIS squat mean-class accuracy (96.45%) is a fresh evaluation of a published architecture on an externally annotated dataset. Equation (8) defines JPE as a per-joint prediction error; the paper does not derive that this error equals a therapist-annotated deviation, and Section VIII explicitly states the signal 'is derived from motion-prediction error rather than therapist-annotated deviation ground truth' and identifies clinical validation as essential future work. The qualitative inspection in Section VII.E checks that open-loop prediction error accumulates naturally with horizon; it is a sanity check, not an independent prediction obtained from the system's own output. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present (Ref. [16] is an institutional dataset page, not an author self-citation of a contested result). The marker-free-video transfer gap—evaluating the predictor only on Vicon ground-truth skeletons—is a genuine generalization risk, but it is a missing experiment, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline rests on two imported components (MMD-NCA BiLSTM and STARS predictor), one new classifier result on a single exercise class, and a feedback visualization whose thresholds and clinical relevance are unspecified. The main free parameters are architectural choices and unreported thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • MMD-NCA embedding dimension = 128
    Hidden and embedding size H=128 and the FC dimensions (320, 128) are hand-chosen architecture parameters; the MMD-NCA loss and attention mechanism depend on H, and no ablation is reported.
  • Sequence length handling = unspecified fixed target length
    Variable-length PROZIS repetitions are zero-padded or subsampled to a fixed target length chosen by the authors; the exact target length is not stated and affects classifier input.
  • Feedback color thresholds = not reported
    The JPE values are mapped to green/yellow/orange/red categories in Section V.D, but the numerical thresholds are never given, so the feedback visualization is defined by an unreported hand choice.
  • Prediction context and horizons = T=10 frames, K=2 to 25
    The 400 ms context window and prediction horizons are design choices tailored to rehabilitation but are not ablated against longer contexts.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Skeletons normalized relative to the hip joint are invariant to subject placement and sufficient for quality classification.
    Section III normalizes each frame to the hip; this assumes absolute position and camera distance carry no rehabilitation-relevant information.
  • domain assumption Zero-padding and subsampling of variable-length sequences preserve the information needed for quality classification without time warping.
    Section III states interpolation yielded up to 2 percentage points lower accuracy, but no principled justification is offered; the fixed target length is unreported.
  • domain assumption Human3.6M motion-prediction performance transfers to marker-free rehabilitation video and to the PROZIS exercise domain.
    Section VI.B admits the datasets are separate and no joint evaluation exists; the whole feedback-module rationale depends on this transfer.
  • ad hoc to paper JPE computed as prediction error is a meaningful surrogate for exercise deviation feedback.
    Section V.D and Section VIII state the signal is 'derived from motion-prediction error rather than therapist-annotated deviation ground truth'. The color-coded warning levels have no clinical calibration.
  • domain assumption The adopted STARS and STS-GCN models reproduce their published benchmark numbers in this pipeline.
    No re-training or re-evaluation is reported; Table II is quoted from prior work by Xu et al. and Sofianos et al.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Autonomous Telerehabilitation via Skeletal Motion Prediction and Joint-Level Performance Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZEUZ5TRH

@misc{pith2026260812145,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Autonomous Telerehabilitation via Skeletal Motion Prediction and Joint-Level Performance Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZEUZ5TRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12145}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous rehabilitation systems must not only recognize human motion but also provide structured feedback to support users without continuous therapist supervision. This paper presents a telerehabilitation pipeline that integrates skeleton-based exercise quality assessment and short-term motion prediction into a two-module system operating on marker-free RGB video. A self-attentive Bidirectional LSTM performs exercise quality classification using MMD-NCA metric learning, while a graph-based motion prediction module computes per-joint position errors between predicted and observed poses, generating spatially localized deviation signals. Each module is evaluated independently on established benchmarks: the classifier achieves 96.45% mean-class accuracy on squat sequences from the PROZIS dataset, and the adopted STARS predictor achieves a mean MPJPE of 75.8 mm at 560 ms on Human3.6M, outperforming graph and recurrent baselines across all prediction horizons. The framework is designed for eventual deployment in assistive robotics and home-based rehabilitation contexts; end-to-end integration and clinical validation are important directions for future work. By combining motion recognition and prediction in a single system, this work contributes a step toward autonomous, feedback-driven telerehabilitation, for more accessible and scalable rehabilitation solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12145 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-level pipeline of the proposed method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Training and validation accuracy and loss curves on the PROZIS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative visual feedback generated by STS-GCN for a walking sequence. Five evenly spaced frames sampled from a continuous 25-frame ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of context quality on joint-level feedback. Five evenly spaced frames from a 25-frame ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Diverse human motion prediction guided by multi-level spatial-temporal anchors,

    S. Xu, Y . X. Wang, and L. Y . Gui, “Diverse human motion prediction guided by multi-level spatial-temporal anchors,”Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), pp. 251–269, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Potentials of digitalization in sports medicine: A narrative review,

    L. Rigamonti, U. V . Albrecht, C. Lutter, M. Tempel, B. Wolfarth, D. A. Back, and D. A. Back, “Potentials of digitalization in sports medicine: A narrative review,”Current Sports Medicine Reports, vol. 19, pp. 157–163, 4 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    A deep learning framework for assessing physical rehabilitation exercises,

    Y . Liao, A. Vakanski, and M. Xian, “A deep learning framework for assessing physical rehabilitation exercises,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, vol. 28, pp. 468–477, 2 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Speech discrimination by dynamic programming,

    T. K. Vintsyuk, “Speech discrimination by dynamic programming,”Cy- bernetics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 52–57, 1968, russian original: Kibernetika 4(1):81–88 (1968)

    work page 1968

  5. [4]

    Derivative dynamic time warping,

    E. J. Keogh and M. J. Pazzani, “Derivative dynamic time warping,”Proceedings, pp. 1–11, 4 2001. [Online]. Available: /doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611972719.1?download=true

    doi:10.1137/1.9781611972719.1 2001

  6. [5]

    Human Motion Analysis with Deep Metric Learning

    H. Coskun, D. J. Tan, S. Conjeti, N. Navab, and F. Tombari, “Human motion analysis with deep metric learning,”Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 11218 LNCS, pp. 693–710, 8 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.11176 Fig. 3. Qualitative vi...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping,

    R. Hadsell, S. Chopra, and Y . LeCun, “Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping,”Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 2, pp. 1735–1742, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1640964

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    On human motion prediction using recurrent neural networks,

    J. Martinez, M. J. Black, and J. Romero, “On human motion prediction using recurrent neural networks,”Proceedings - 30th IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, vol. 2017-January, pp. 4674–4683, 5 2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.02445

    arXiv 2017

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition,

    S. Yan, Y . Xiong, and D. Lin, “Spatial temporal graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition,”32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2018, pp. 7444–7452, 1

    2018

  2. [10]

    Learning trajectory dependencies for human motion prediction,

    W. Mao, M. Liu, M. Salzmann, and H. Li, “Learning trajectory dependencies for human motion prediction,”Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 9488–9496, 7

  3. [11]

    Space- time-separable graph convolutional network for pose forecasting,

    T. Sofianos, A. Sampieri, L. Franco, and F. Galasso, “Space- time-separable graph convolutional network for pose forecasting,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 11 189–11 198, 10 2021. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/2110.04573

    2021 arXiv

  4. [13]

    A structured self-attentive sentence embedding,

    Z. Lin, M. Feng, C. N. dos Santos, M. Yu, B. Xiang, B. Zhou, and Y . Bengio, “A structured self-attentive sentence embedding,” 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017 - Conference Track Proceedings, 3 2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/...

    2017 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Human3.6m: Large scale datasets and predictive methods for 3d human sensing in natural environments,

    C. Ionescu, D. Papava, V . Olaru, and C. Sminchisescu, “Human3.6m: Large scale datasets and predictive methods for 3d human sensing in natural environments,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 36, pp. 1325–1339, 2014

    2014

  6. [15]

    Structural-rnn: Deep learning on spatio-temporal graphs,

    A. Jain, A. R. Zamir, S. Savarese, and A. Saxena, “Structural-rnn: Deep learning on spatio-temporal graphs,”Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 2016-December, pp. 5308–5317, 4 2016. [Online]. Available: http://ar...

    2016 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Prozis challenge,

    J. Batista, “Prozis challenge,” https://www.isr.uc.pt/index.php/projects/ past-projects?task=showprojects.show%28%29&idProject=219, 2019, online; accessed 2025

    2019

  8. [17]

    Transformers for workout video segmentation,

    B. Ferreira, P. Menezes, and J. Batista, “Transformers for workout video segmentation,”Proceedings - International Conference on Image Processing, ICIP, pp. 3470–3474, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9897194

    2022

  9. [18]

    Carnegie mellon university - cmu graphics lab - motion capture library

    “Carnegie mellon university - cmu graphics lab - motion capture library.” [Online]. Available: https://mocap.cs.cmu.edu/

  10. [19]

    Generative models and model criticism via optimized maximum mean discrepancy,

    D. J. Sutherland, H.-Y . Tung, H. Strathmann, S. De, A. Ramdas, A. Smola, and A. Gretton, “Generative models and model criticism via optimized maximum mean discrepancy,”5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017 - Conference Track Proceedings, 1 2021. ...

    2017

  11. [20]

    Speech discrimination by dynamic programming,

    T. K. Vintsyuk, “Speech discrimination by dynamic programming,” Cybernetics, vol. 4, pp. 52–57, 1 1968. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01074755

    1968 doi

  12. [21]

    Learning a mahalanobis distance based dynamic time warping measure for multivariate time series classification

    J. Mei, M. Liu, Y .-F. Wang, and H. Gao, “Learning a mahalanobis distance based dynamic time warping measure for multivariate time series classification.”

  13. [22]

    Canonical time warping for alignment of human behavior

    F. Zhou and F. D. L. Torre, “Canonical time warping for alignment of human behavior.”

  14. [23]

    Generalized canonical time warping,

    F. Zhou and F. De la Torre, “Generalized canonical time warping,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 279–294, 2016

    2016

  15. [24]

    Deep canonical time warping for simultaneous alignment and representation learning of sequences,

    G. Trigeorgis, M. A. Nicolaou, B. W. Schuller, and S. Zafeiriou, “Deep canonical time warping for simultaneous alignment and representation learning of sequences,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 40, pp. 1128–1138, 5 2018

    2018

  16. [25]

    Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering,

    F. Schroff, D. Kalenichenko, and J. Philbin, “Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering,”Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 07-12-June-2015, pp. 815–823, 10 2015. [Online]. Available: http...

    2015

  17. [26]

    Learning spread-out local feature descriptors,

    X. Zhang, F. X. Yu, S. Kumar, and S. F. Chang, “Learning spread-out local feature descriptors,”IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, vol. 2017-October, pp. 4605–4613, 12 2017

    2017

  18. [27]

    Improved deep metric learning with multi-class n-pair loss objective,

    K. Sohn, “Improved deep metric learning with multi-class n-pair loss objective,”Neural Information Processing Systems, 2016

    2016

  19. [2018]

    Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.07455

    [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.07455

    arXiv

  20. [2020]

    Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.05436

    [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.05436

    1908 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.