Cited by 498Human Pose and Action RecognitionVideo Analysis and SummarizationMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

TURN TAP: Temporal Unit Regression Network for Temporal Action Proposals

Open access
Gao, Jiyang, Yang, Zhenheng, Sun, Chen, Chen, Kan, Nevatia, Ram·2017·2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

Abstract

Temporal Action Proposal (TAP) generation is an important problem, as fast and accurate extraction of semantically important (e.g. human actions) segments from untrimmed videos is an important step for large-scale video analysis. We propose a novel Temporal Unit Regression Network (TURN) model. There are two salient aspects of TURN: (1) TURN jointly predicts action proposals and refines the temporal boundaries by temporal coordinate regression: (2) Fast computation is enabled by unit feature reuse: a long untrimmed video is decomposed into video units, which are reused as basic building blocks of temporal proposals. TURN outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods under average recall (AR) by a large margin on THUMOS-14 and ActivityNet datasets, and runs at over 880 frames per second (FPS) on a TITAN X GPU. We further apply TURN as a proposal generation stage for existing temporal action localization pipelines, it outperforms state-of-the-art performance on THUMOS-14 and ActivityNet.

Overview

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/iccv.2017.392

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 40 references

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. oneata, 2014, The lear submission at thumos 2014, ECCV workshop

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 495

Metadata

Authors
Gao, J., Yang, Z., Sun, C., Chen, K., & Nevatia, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
Venue
2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-10
Pages
3648-3656
OpenAlex
W2597958930
Cited by
498
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 2
FWCI
15.75
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Human Pose and Action Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Video Analysis and Summarization
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
feature reuse, temporal action localization, real-time video processing

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