Ucf101: A dataset of 101 human actions classes from videos in the wild
Open accessAbstract
We introduce UCF101 which is currently the largest dataset of human actions. It consists of 101 action classes, over 13k clips and 27 hours of video data. The database consists of realistic user uploaded videos containing camera motion and cluttered background. Additionally, we provide baseline action recognition results on this new dataset using standard bag of words approach with overall performance of 44.5%. To the best of our knowledge, UCF101 is currently the most challenging dataset of actions due to its large number of classes, large number of clips and also unconstrained nature of such clips.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
UCF101 contains over 13,000 YouTube video clips with a total duration of about 27 hours and an average length of 7 seconds, annotated with one of 101 action classes.
“UCF101 (Soomro et al., 2012) is a data set of videos showing human actions. It contains over 13,000 YouTube video clips with a total duration of about 27 hours and an average length of 7 seconds.”
From Video Diffusion Models: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as Soomro et al., 2012
Commonly used evaluation datasets for video generation include UCF-101, MSR-VTT, TaiChi-HD, and Sky Time-Lapse.
“Commonly used evaluation datasets for video generation include UCF-101 (Soomro et al., 2012), MSR-VTT (Xu et al., 2016), TaiChi-HD (Siarohin et al., 2019), and Sky Time-Lapse (Radford et al., 2021).”
From Video Diffusion Models: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as Soomro et al., 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 9 · Cited by 4,575
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [3][3] M. Blank, L. Gorelick, E. Shechtman, M. Irani, and R. Basri. Actions as space-time shapes, 2005. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). 2, 6 -
- [6][6] J. Liu, J. Luo, and M. Shah. Recognizing realistic actions from videos in the wild, 2009. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2, 6 -
- [7][7] M. Marszaek, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid. Actions in context, 2009. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2, 5, 6 -
- [8][8] J. Niebles, C. Chen, and L. Fei-Fei. Modeling temporal structure of decomposable motion segments for activity classication, 2010. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). 2, 6 -
- [9][9] K. Reddy and M. Shah. Recognizing 50 human action categories of web videos, 2012. Machine Vision and Applications Journal (MVAP). 2, 6 -
- [10][10] M. Rodriguez, J. Ahmed, and M. Shah. Action mach: A spatiotemporal maximum average correlation height lter for action recognition, 2008. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2, 6 -
- [11][11] C. Schuldt, I. Laptev, and B. Caputo. Recognizing human actions: A local svm approach, 2004. International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). 2, 6 -
- [12][12] D. Weinland, E. Boyer, and R. Ronfard. Action recognition from arbitrary views using 3d exemplars, 2007. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). 2, 6 Figure 5. Confusion table of baseline action recognition results using bag of words approach on UCF101. The drawn lines separate different types of actions; 1-50: Sports, 51-60: Playing Musical Instrument, 61-80: Human-Object Interaction, 81-96: Body-Motion Only, 97-101: Human-Human Interaction. <!-- image -->
- Authors
- Soomro, K., Zamir, A. R., & Shah, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2012
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1212.0402
- OpenAlex
- W24089286
- Cited by
- 4,575
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 93 · 2025: 269 · 2024: 384 · 2023: 469 · 2022: 367 · 2021: 627 · 2020: 604 · 2019: 578 · 2018: 450 · 2017: 316 · 2016: 216 · 2015: 127 · 2014: 64 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- TIB Data Manager
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Human Pose and Action Recognition
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Hand Gesture Recognition Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Keywords
- human action recognition, UCF101, camera movement, background clutter, bag-of-words, action classification
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
