PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Unsupervised open-vocabulary action recognition with an autoregressive model

Adrian Bulat, Enrique Sanchez, Brais Martinez, Georgios Tzimiropoulos

generative modelszero-shotaction recognitionautoregressive modelsvision-language
50.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
60.80100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
46.90100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Current works on zero/few- shot action recognition are largely based on contrastive approaches trained in a supervised manner to select an action class out of a predefined set. Instead, in this work, we propose a new paradigm for zero-shot action recognition based on autoregressive generation of a free-form action-specific caption describing the action occurring in the video. To this end, we propose to adapt an image-based pre-trained autoregressive Vision & Language (V&L) Model for action recognition. We firstly show that direct fine-tuning of an autoregressive model using the action classes suffers from severe overfitting. To alleviate this, we then introduce an unsupervised learning framework consisting of two key components: (a) an unsupervised method for adapting the autoregressive model to action/video data by means of pseudo-caption generation and self-training without using any action-specific labels; (b) a retrieval component for discovering a diverse set of pseudo-captions for each video. In the process, we show that both components are necessary to obtain high accuracy. Our model results in predictions that are fine-grained, interpretable, and naturally open-vocabulary. Importantly, when evaluated for zero- and few-shot action recognition, our approach matches or even outperforms contrastive learning-based methods.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)