Cited by 559Advanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Learning to recognize objects in egocentric activities

Open access
Fathi, Alireza, Ren, Xiaofeng, Rehg, James M.·2011·CVPR 2011

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of learning object models from egocentric video of household activities, using extremely weak supervision. For each activity sequence, we know only the names of the objects which are present within it, and have no other knowledge regarding the appearance or location of objects. The key to our approach is a robust, unsupervised bottom up segmentation method, which exploits the structure of the egocentric domain to partition each frame into hand, object, and background categories. By using Multiple Instance Learning to match object instances across sequences, we discover and localize object occurrences. Object representations are refined through transduction and object-level classifiers are trained. We demonstrate encouraging results in detecting novel object instances using models produced by weakly-supervised learning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2011.5995444

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The GTEA dataset contains 28 videos corresponding to 7 different activities performed by 4 subjects.

    “The GTEA dataset contains 28 videos corresponding to 7 different activities, like preparing coffee or cheese sandwich, performed by 4 subjects.”

    From MS-TCN++: Multi-Stage Temporal Convolutional Network for Action Segmentation (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 5.1 (Dataset; page not available) says the dataset has seven activities performed by four subjects and lists coffee and cheese-sandwich activities. It does not state that the dataset contains 28 videos or establish that each subject contributed exactly one video per activity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • GTEA is originally 15 fps videos, and 50 Salads is 30 fps videos.

    “GTEA is originally 15 fps (frames per second) videos, and 50 Salads is 30 fps videos.”

    From Stacked encoder–decoder transformer with boundary smoothing for action segmentation (2022) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 5.1 (Dataset) says the GTEA videos were recorded at 30 fps and frames were then extracted at 15 fps. Thus, 15 fps describes the extracted frames, not the original videos. The cited paper does not address 50 Salads or its frame rate. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The proposed model achieves state-of-the-art results on the 50Salads, GTEA, and Breakfast datasets.

    “Our model achieves state-of-the-art results on three challenging datasets: 50Salads, Georgia Tech Egocentric Activities (GTEA), and the Breakfast dataset.”
  • SEDT yields state-of-the-art results on 50 Salads and GTEA.

    “Our framework yields stateof-the-art results on two challenging datasets: 50 Salads [7] and GTEA [8].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [6]6. R. Fergus, H. Bernal, Y. Weiss, and A. Torralba. Se- mantic label sharing for learning with many cate- gories. In ECCV, 2010. 3282

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fathi, A., Ren, X., & Rehg, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Intel (United States) (US)
Venue
CVPR 2011
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2011-06
Pages
3281-3288
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031688197
Cited by
557
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.47
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • SMARTech Repository (Georgia Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0916687)
  • Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative
  • Army Research Office
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
egocentric video, housework, object recognition, weakly supervised learning, unsupervised segmentation, hand segmentation, object localization, multiple instance learning, transductive learning, novel object detection, activity recognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review