Real-Time Action Detection in Video Surveillance using Sub-Action
Descriptor with Multi-CNN
Cheng-Bin Jin*, Shengzhe Li†, and Hakil Kim*
*

Inha University, Incheon, Korea
†
Visionin Inc., Incheon, Korea

Abstract
When we say a person is texting, can you tell the person is walking or sitting? Emphatically, no. In order
to solve this incomplete representation problem, this paper presents a sub-action descriptor for detailed
action detection. The sub-action descriptor consists of three levels: the posture, the locomotion, and the
gesture level. The three levels give three sub-action categories for one action to address the representation
problem. The proposed action detection model simultaneously localizes and recognizes the actions of
multiple individuals in video surveillance using appearance-based temporal features with multi-CNN. The
proposed approach achieved a mean average precision (mAP) of 76.6% at the frame-based and 83.5% at
the video-based measurement on the new large-scale ICVL video surveillance dataset that the authors
introduce and make available to the community with this paper. Extensive experiments on the benchmark
KTH dataset demonstrate that the proposed approach achieved better performance, which in turn boosts
the action recognition performance over the state-of-the-art. The action detection model can run at around
25 fps on the ICVL and more than 80 fps on the KTH dataset, which is suitable for real-time surveillance
applications.
Keywords: sub-action descriptor, action detection, video surveillance, convolutional neural network,
multi-CNN

1. Introduction
The goal of this paper is to enable automatic recognition of actions in surveillance systems to help human
for alerting, retrieval, and summarization of the data [1], [2], [3]. Vision-based action recognition—the
recognition of semantic spatial–temporal visual patterns such as walking, running, texting, and smoking,
etc.—is a core computer vision problem in video surveillance [4]. Much of the progress in surveillance
has been possible owing to the availability of public datasets, such as the KTH [5], Weizmann [6], VIRAT
[7], and TRECVID [8] datasets. However, current state-of-the-art surveillance systems have been
saturated by these existing datasets, where actions are in constrained scenes and some unscripted
surveillance footage tends to be repetitive, often dominated by scenes of people walking. There is a need
for a new video surveillance dataset to stimulate progress. In this paper, the ICVL dataset1 is introduced,
which is a new large-scale video surveillance dataset designed to assess the performance of recognizing
an action and localizing the corresponding space–time volume from a long continuous video. The ICVL
dataset has an immediate and far-reaching impact for many research areas in video surveillance, including
human detection and tracking and action detection.

1 Available

from: http://vision.inha.ac.kr/

For the existing representation problem of an action, this paper proposes a sub-action descriptor (Figure
1), which delivers complete information about a human action. For instance, conventional methods give
the action representation of texting for one person who is texting while sitting and the same action
descriptor for another person who is texting while walking. The action information for those two persons
should be totally different. The first difference is posture: one person is sitting, and the other is standing.
The second difference is locomotion: one person is stationary, and the other is walking. The proposed
sub-action descriptor consists of three levels: posture, locomotion, and gesture, and the three levels
provide three sub-action descriptors for one action to address the above problem. Each level of sub-action
descriptor is one convolutional neural network (CNN)-based classifier. Each CNN classifier captures
different appearance-based temporal features to represent a human sub-action.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1: Conventional representation problems and sub-action descriptor. (a) Conventional
representation problem: texting, (b) conventional representation problem: smoking, and (c) structure of the
sub-action descriptor. A sub-action descriptor includes three levels: the posture level, the locomotion level,
and the gesture level. Each level has one CNN; therefore, for one action by an individual, three CNNs
work simultaneously.
Much of the existing work [9], [10] is focused on video-based action recognition (“Is there an action in
the video?”) that tries to classify the video as a whole via globally pooled features. Global-based feature
pooling works well; however, this method does not consider the different actions of multiple individuals
that are present at the same time. For instance, one person in the video might be texting and, beside him,
another person is smoking. In our work, the problem of action detection in video surveillance is addressed:
“Is there an action, and where is it in the video spatially and temporally?” This does far more than most
of the works so far, which aims to classify a pre-clipped video segment of a single action event. The
rationale behind the action detection strategy is partly inspired by the technique used in a recent paper
[11], which starts by localizing action interest regions and classifying them, which improves the
representational power and classification accuracy.

2

This paper aims to develop a real-time action detection algorithm with high performance based on the
CNN. This is challenging, since tracking by detection and action recognition are computationally
expensive and cannot be estimated together in real-time. There are many works to estimate human pose
[12], [13], [14] and analyze motion information [15] in real-time. B. Zhang, et al. [16] proposed a realtime CNN based action recognition method. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the work can
spatially and temporally detect actions for real-time process.

Figure 2: Overall scheme of the proposed real-time action detection model. Through a motion-detection,
human-detection, and multiple-tracking algorithm, appearance-based temporal features of the regions of
interest (ROIs) are fed into three CNNs, which make predictions using shape, motion history, and their
combined cues. Each action of an individual has three sub-action categories under the sub-action
descriptor, which delivers a complete set of information about a human action.
The goal of this work was to build a novel model that can simultaneously localize and recognize multiple
actions of individuals in video surveillance. Figure 2 shows the overall scheme of the proposed real-time
action detection model. In the training phase, the ROI and the sub-action annotations are first determined
manually in each frame of the training videos, and three appearance-based temporal features—binary
difference image (BDI), motion history image (MHI), and weighted average image (WAI)—are computed
from the ROI. Every single level of the sub-action descriptor has one CNN classifier, and this paper
denotes the classifiers as BDI-CNN, MHI-CNN, and WAI-CNN. These classifiers are learned via three
appearance-based temporal features. In the multi-CNN model, each prediction of a CNN is equal to one
sub-action. In the testing phase, a motion saliency region is generated using a Gaussian mixture model
(GMM) to eliminate regions that are not likely to contain the action. This leads to a big reduction in the
number of regions processed. The conventional sliding window–based scheme is used on the motion

3

saliency region as a mask. In the sliding window, a human-detection histogram of oriented gradient (HOG)
descriptor [17] with a latent support vector machine (SVM) [18] is used to detect humans in an initial
action in the ROIs. Then, the regions undergo Kalman filtering–based refinement of the positions. Given
the refined action in the regions of interest, shape, motion history, and their combined cues are used with
the aid of the CNNs to predict three sub-action categories. Finally, the post-processing stage checks for
conflicts in the structure of the sub-action descriptor and applies temporal smoothing according to the
previous action history of each individual to reduce noise.
Experimental results are shown for the task of action detection with the ICVL dataset and KTH dataset.
An ablation study is presented and shows the effect of each component when considered separately. The
results indicate that shape and motion history information are complementary, and that using both leads to
a significant improvement in performance for recognizing subtle actions. The proposed approach achieves
a mean average precision (mAP) of 76.6% at the frame-based measurement and 83.5% at the video-based
measurement with the ICVL dataset. Moreover, the results on the KTH demonstrate that the proposed
method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art action recognition methods. This paper builds on an
earlier publication [19], which unifies the notation, explains the approach in more detail, and includes
considerably more thorough experimental validation. The major contributions of this paper can be
summarized as follows:
 The sub-action descriptor is described for the action detection model. In this descriptor, there are
three levels; the levels are combined to represent many different types of actions with a large degree
of freedom. The use of divided levels in the sub-action descriptor delivers a complete set of
information about human actions and is based on the experimental results, which significantly
eliminates misclassifications.
 A real-time action detection model is developed on the basis of appearance-based temporal features
with a multi-CNN classifier. Much of the work in human-activity analysis focuses on video-based
action classification. However, a model for action detection that simultaneously localizes and
recognizes multiple actions of individuals with low computational cost and high accuracy is provided.
 A new public surveillance video dataset is introduced. A collective effort was made to obtain natural
examples from a variety of sites under different weather conditions and levels of illumination.
Detailed annotations are available, which include human bounding box tracks and sub-action labels,
which provide quantitative evaluation for surveillance research. This is the only dataset suitable for
action detection in surveillance, unlike datasets for the task of action classification.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. More background information about activity analysis is
provided in Section 2. The details of the proposed approach are described in Section 3. An evaluation and
a discussion of the proposed method performed on the ICVL and KTH dataset are given in Section 4.
Finally, conclusions, including potential improvements, are given in Section 5.

2. Related Works
There has been a fair amount of research on activity analysis, and recent surveys can be found [20], [21].
Estimating a human pose using a predefined model (e.g., pictorial structures) in each frame is the most
common technique for generic human model recovery. The model is driven by an attempt to minimize the
cost function between the collection of parts arranged in a deformable configuration and human contours

4

[22], [23]. Because of the truncation and occlusion of body parts, pose estimation from a 2D image is a
complicated process. Recent work has exploited improvements in depth imaging and 3D input data.
Shotton et al. [24], [12] estimated parts of the human body and the 3D locations of each skeletal joint
directly from a single depth image using a 3D sensor. However, a human action goes further than a human
pose, and after human pose information is obtained, specific classifiers or decision rules are needed to
recognize actions.
Many of the approaches introduce an appearance-based method where an action comprises a sequence of
human silhouettes or shapes. In contrast to human model recovery, this method uses appearance-based
temporal representations of static cues in a multitude of frames, where an action is described by a
sequence of two-dimensional shapes. Motion energy image (MEI) and motion history image (MHI) [25],
[26] are the most pervasive appearance-based temporal features. The advantages of the methods are that
they are simple, fast, and work very well in controlled environments, e.g., the background of the
surveillance video (from a top-view camera) is always the ground. The fatal flaw in MHI is that it cannot
capture interior motions; it can only capture human shapes [19]. However, the effect of shape and motion
history cues with CNN for action recognition has not been investigated carefully. In our work, a novel
method for encoding these temporal features is proposed, and a study of how different appearance-based
temporal features affect performance is provided. Other appearance-based temporal methods are the
active shape model, the learned dynamic prior model, and the motion prior model. In addition, motion is
consistent and easily characterized by a definite space–time trajectory in some feature spaces. Based on
visual tracking, some approaches use motion trajectories (e.g., generic and parametric optical flow) of
predefined human regions or body interest points to recognize actions [27], [28].
Local spatial–temporal feature-based methods have been the most popular over the past few years. The
methods compute multiple descriptors, including appearance-based (e.g., HOG [17], Cuboids [29] or
SIFT [30]) and motion-based (e.g., optical flow [31], HoF [32], MBH [33]) features on a spatial–temporal
interest point trajectory, which they encode by using a bag of features or Fischer vector encoding [34] and
by training SVM classifiers. Laptev [35] proposed space-time interest point (STIP) by extending the 2D
Harris corner to a 3D spatial–temporal domain. Kim et al. [36] introduced a multi-way feature pooling
approach that uses unsupervised clustering of segment-level HoG3D [37] features. Li et al. [38] extracted
spatial–temporal features that are a subset of improved dense trajectory (IDT) features [10], [33], namely,
HoF, MBHx, and MBHy, by removing camera motion to recognize egocentric actions. The local spatial–
temporal feature-based method was shown to be efficient with challenging scenes and achieved state-ofthe-art performance with several instances of benchmark action recognition. However, the existing
methods are quite computationally expensive.
Some alternative methods for action recognition have been proposed [11], [39], [40], [41]. Vahdat et al.
[39] developed a temporal model consisting of key poses for recognizing higher-level activities. Lan et al.
[40] introduced a structure for a latent variable framework that encodes contextual information. Jiang et al.
[11] proposed a unified tree-based framework for action localization and recognition based on a HoF
descriptor and a defined initial action segmentation mask. Lan et al. [41] introduced a multi-skip featurestacking method for enhancing the learnability of action representations. In addition, hidden Markov
models (HMMs), dynamic Bayesian networks (DBNs), and dynamic time warping (DTP) are wellstudied methods for speed variation in actions. However, actions cannot be reliably estimated in real-

5

world environments using these methods.
Computing handcrafted features from raw video frames and learning classifiers on the basis of the
obtained features are a basic two-step approach used in most of the methods. In real-world applications,
the design of the feature and the choice of the feature are the most difficult and highly problem-dependent
issues. Especially for human action recognition, different action categories may look dramatically
different according to their appearances and motion patterns. Based on impressive results from deep
architectures, attempts have been made to train deep convolutional neural networks for the task of action
classification [42],[43]. Ji et al. [44] built a 3D CNN model that extracts appearance and motion features
from both spatial and temporal dimensions in multiple adjacent frames. Using two-stream deep
convolutional neural networks with optical flow, Simonyan and Zisserman [45] achieved a result that is
comparable to IDT [10]. Karpathy et al. [46] trained a deep convolutional neural network using 1 million
videos for action classification. Gkioxari and Malik [47] built action detection models that start by
selecting candidate regions using CNNs and then classify them using SVM. The two-stage structure in
our proposed approach for action detection is similar to their work; however, the crucial difference is that
their network focuses on one actor and made incorrect predictions for multiple actors based on their
optimization problem. Moreover, appearance-based temporal-feature integration is quite different, and our
proposed approach is able to detect the actions of multiple actors.

3. Proposed Model for Human Action Detection
The main objective of the proposed approach is to detect the actions of multiple individuals for real-time
surveillance applications. Figure 2 outlines the proposed approach. The human action regions are detected
by a frame-based human detector and a Kalman tracking algorithm. The action classifier is composed of
three CNNs that operate on the shape, motion history and their combined cues. According to the subaction descriptor, the classifier predicts the regions to produce three outputs for each action. The outputs
of the classifiers go through a post-processing step to render the final decisions.

3.1 Sub-Action Descriptor
The problem of representing an action is not well-defined as a measurement problem of geometry (e.g.,
measurement of an image or camera motion). Intra-class variation in the action category is ambiguous, as
shown in Figure 1(a) and (b). Although the actions of the three persons are texting in Figure 1(a), can you
tell if what they are doing is exactly the same? The first person is texting while sitting, the second person
is texting while standing and is stationary, and the third person is texting while standing and walking. For
the above three persons, giving the same action representation (texting) is often confusing—all of them
have different postures and locomotion states for the same action. These are the same problems for the
action of smoking in Figure 1(c).
To deliver complete information about human actions, and to clarify action information, the proposed
approach in this paper models an action with a sub-action descriptor. A depiction of the sub-action
descriptor is shown in Figure 1(c). The descriptor includes three levels: the posture level, the locomotion
level, and the gesture level. The posture level comprises the following two sub-actions: sitting and
standing. The locomotion level comprises stationary, walking, and running. The gesture level comprises
nothing, texting, smoking, and others (e.g., phoning, pointing, or stretching, which are not considered).

6

The connecting line between two sub-actions at different levels indicates that the two sub-actions are
independent of each other. No connection indicates an incompatible relation where the two sub-actions
cannot happen together. Each level has one CNN; therefore, for one action of an individual, three CNNs
work simultaneously. The first network, BDI-CNN, operates on a static cue and captures the shape of the
actor. The second network, MHI-CNN, operates on a motion cue and captures the history of the motion of
the actor. The third network, WAI-CNN, operates on a combination of static and motion cues and captures
the patterns of a subtle action by the subject. The designed descriptor of actions can transform the difficult
problem of action recognition into many easier problems of multi-level sub-action recognition. It is
inspired by the very large number of actions that can be built by very few independent sub-actions. In this
descriptor, three levels combine to represent many different types of actions with a large degree of
freedom.

3.2 Tracking by Detection
The main goal of this paper is real-time action detection in surveillance video. For the human detection
and tracking algorithm, we adopt existing methods to provide a stable human action region for subsequent
action recognition. A processing time of 20-30 ms for each frame, a stable bounding box for the human
action region, and a low false detection rate are the important factors for human detection and tracking.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3: Mini motion map for reducing the unnecessary computation in HOG-based human detection. (a)
Original image with a size of 640 × 360, and (b) mini motion map with a size of 77 × 34, which was
calculated from GMM-based motion detection
Computational efficiency of the surveillance application is critical. Sliding window is the bottleneck in
the processing time of the object detection because many windows, in general, contain no object. To this
end, motion detection is performed before object detection to discard regions that are void of motion. A
mini motion map is generated [48] by using a Gaussian mixture model–based motion detection algorithm
[49]. The mini motion map is rescaled to the same number of width × height sliding windows, such that
minimum computation is required when determining whether a sliding window is a foreground or a
background. The size of the mini motion map is computed with the following equation:

size mni-map =

sizeoriginal  sizedetection
stride

7

.

(1)

The default value of sizedetection is (64, 128) and that of stride is (8, 8) in HOG [17]. Figure 3 shows the
mini motion map. For instance, if the size of the original image is 640 × 360, then the size of the mini
motion map is 77 × 34.

Figure 4: Procedure for multiple detections and tracks.
For the classification, latent SVM [18] with a fixed C = 100, as recommended elsewhere [10], is used to
classify the HOG to detect humans. The next step is to associate the resulting detections with the
corresponding tracks [50]. Humans appear and disappear at random times; thus, three types of cases exist
in the data association problem: 1) add a new track, 2) update an existing track, and 3) delete a track [48].
The procedure for handling multiple detections and tracks is shown in Figure 4. When a new track is
added, it starts to count the number of frames that the track has updated without detection. In this way,
even when a motion is not detected in some frames, the track still updates according to the previous
prediction. If the number is larger than the threshold nskip, the track is considered to have disappeared and
is deleted.

3.3 Appearance-Based Temporal Features
Appearance-based temporal features extract static information from a multitude of frames, where an
action is described by a sequence of two-dimensional shapes. The features are very simple and fast, and
they work very well in controlled environments, such as in surveillance systems where the cameras are
installed on rooftops or high poles; therefore, the view angles of the cameras are toward dominant ground
planes.
For the present discussion, a video F is just a real function of three variables:

F  f ( x, y , t )

.

(2)

Here, the coordinate ( x, y, t )  R 3 is the Cartesian coordinate of the video space. In a sub-action
descriptor, each level has one independent CNN that obtains different appearance-based temporal features.
The BDI feature accurately captures the static shape cue of the actor in 2D frames, denoted as b(x, y, t),
and is given by Eq. 3:

8

255 , if f ( x, y, t )  f ( x, y, t0 )   thr
b( x, y , t )  
otherwise
 0,

,

(3)

where the values in the BDI are set to 255 if the difference between the current frame f(x, y, t) and the
background frame f(x, y, t0) of the input video is bigger than a threshold ξthr, and x and y are indexes in the
image domain. BDI is a binary image that indicates the silhouette of the posture. Examples are given in
Figure 5.

Figure 5: Examples of BDI for different sub-actions. BDIs are utilized for the posture level of the subaction descriptor, which comprises sitting and standing. BDI captures the static shape cue of the actor.
In a motion history image, pixel intensity is a function of the temporal history of motion at that point.
MHI captures the motion history patterns of the actor, denoted as h(x, y, t), and is defined using a simple
replacement and decay operator in Eqs. 4-6 [25]

255, if f ( x, y, t )  f ( x, y, t  1)   thr
d  x, y , t   
otherwise
 0,

 max ,
if d ( x, y, t )  255

h ( x, y , t )  
otherwise
max  0, h( x, y, t  1)   
 

 max   min
n

.

(4)

(5)

(6)

MHI is used for the locomotion level, which comprises stationary, walking, and running. It is generated
from the difference between the current frame f(x, y, t) and the previous frame f(x, y, t-1) in Eq. 4. For
each frame, the MHI at time t is calculated from the result of the previous MHI. Therefore, this temporal
feature does not need to be calculated again for the whole set of frames. MHI is a vector image of motion,
where more recently moving regions are brighter (see Figure 6). In Eq. 6, n is the number of frames to be
considered as the action history capacity. The hyper-parameter n is critical in defining the temporal range
of an action. An MHI with a large n covers a long range of action history; however, it is insensitive to
current actions. Similarly, MHI with a small n puts the focus on the recent actions and ignores past actions.
Hence, choosing a good n can be fairly difficult.

9

Figure 6: Examples of MHI for different sub-actions. MHIs are used for the locomotion level of the subaction descriptor, which comprises stationary, walking, and running. MHI captures the motion history cue
of the actor, where more recently moving pixel regions are brighter. The human eye can easily distinguish
stationary, walking, and running from MHIs.
Weighted average images (WAIs) are applied at the gesture level of the sub-action descriptor, which
comprises nothing, texting, smoking, and others. For recognizing subtle actions (e.g., texting and
smoking), the easiest way would be to use the shape or motion history of the actor. The problems with this
method are that it cannot capture detailed information about the subtle actions or that it is sensitive to
context movement, such as camera vibration. The combined cues of shape and motion history together
obtain a spatial–temporal feature for subtle actions. WAI is denoted as s(x, y, t). It is constructed as a
linear combination of BDI and MHI, given by Eq. 7:

s ( x, y, t )  w1  b( x, y, t )  w2  h( x, y, t )， s.t. w1  w2  1

.

(7)

As actions become more complicated, WAI is still not lost completely. w = {w1, w2}T is another hyperparameter. Figure 7 shows some examples of WAI for different sub-actions.

10

Figure 7: Examples of WAI for different sub-actions. WAIs were applied at the gesture level of the subaction descriptor, which comprises nothing, texting, smoking, and others. WAI obtained the combined
cues of shape and motion history. Texting (frequently moving fingers) and smoking (repeated hand-tomouth motion) were captured in WAIs.
The design of these appearance-based temporal features is strongly motivated by their computation: fast,
memory efficient, and with no preprocessing step. Given a larger computational budget, one could
employ potentially more powerful temporal features based on characteristics such as skin-color MHI,
soft-weight assignment feature fusion [36], or optical flow. Some of the hyper-parameters used in the
proposed approach are the focus of the experiments in Section 4. These hyper-parameters are optimized
by a grid search to maximize the mean average precision over a validation set of the ICVL dataset. The
temporal features in this paper are constructed using a τmax value of 255, a τmin value of 0, and a scalar
threshold ξthr of 30.

3.4 Multi-CNN Action Classifier
Three appearance-based temporal features are extracted from human action regions for BDI-CNN, MHICNN, and WAI-CNN, respectively. The first network, BDI-CNN, takes as input the BDI and captures the
shape of the actor. The second network, MHI-CNN, operates on the MHI and captures the motion history
of the actor. The third network, WAI-CNN, operates on the WAI and captures both the shape and the
motion history of the actor. The three CNNs are trained sequentially for the task of action classification.

11

Figure 8: Architecture of a CNN. The architecture comprises two convolutional layers, two subsampling
layers, two fully connected layers, and one softmax regression layer.
The selection of the optimal architecture of a CNN for a specific problem is challenging because this
depends on the application. To keep the computation time low, we devised a light CNN architecture for
real-time human action detection. The architecture of the CNN is shown in Figure 8 [19]. The
architectures of BDI-CNN, MHI-CNN, and WAI-CNN are identical. Define I(m) as an input image with
size m × m; C(k, n, s) is a convolutional layer with a kernel size of k × k, n filters, a stride of s, and no
padding. Sm(k, s) is a subsampling layer of size k × k and stride s using max pooling. ReLUs indicates
rectified linear units, FC(n) is a fully connected layer with n neurons, and D(r) is a dropout layer with a
dropout ratio r. The architecture of the network is as follows: I(28) – C(5,4,1) – ReLUs – Sm(2,2) –
C(7,8,1) – ReLUs – Sm(2,2) – FC(256) – D(0.5) – FC(256) – D(0.5) – FC(|Oi|). The output layer consists
of the same number of units as the number of sub-actions at the corresponding level of the descriptor.
Finally, a softmax regression layer is added at the end of the network. If computational efficiency is not
critical, one could use more complicated architectures [51], [52].
The weights in each layer are initialized using a zero-mean Gaussian distribution with a standard
deviation of 0.01. The neuron biases in the convolutional layers and fully connected layers are initialized
with the constant value of 1. Weight initialization is important in deep neural networks. Other works used
transfer learning for initializing weights, especially in the absence of data. However, the advantage of
transfer learning cannot be observed in this work owing the light architecture of the CNN and the
abundant training data for each category on the ICVL dataset.
BDI-CNN, MHI-CNN, and WAI-CNN are trained using stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with a batch
size of 256 examples, a learning rate of 0.001, a momentum of 0.9, and a weight decay of 0.0005, as in
Krizhevsky et al. [51]. The networks are trained for 1 K iterations. The update rule of the weight is given
by Eqs. 8 and 9

vi +1：= m  vi      wi   

12

L
wi
w

(8)
Di

wi 1 : wi  vi 1

,

(9)

where v is a momentum variable, m is the momentum, α is the weight decay, ε is the learning rate, i is the
iteration index, and

L
wi
w

is the average over the ith batch Di of the derivative of the objective
Di

function with respect to w, as evaluated at wi .
With a padding of 10 pixels in each dimension, the human action regions of BDI, MHI, and WAI are
cropped to the bounding boxes and resized to 28×28. The average intensity values of BDI, MHI, and WAI
are subtracted from the input temporal feature. Then, the features are flipped by mirroring the maps
horizontally with a probability of 0.5.

3.5 Post-Processing
The discriminative action classifier composed of multiple CNNs, makes three predictions for each action,
and the predictions are revised by post-processing to obtain the final decisions. As shown in Figure 1(c),
the connection lines between two sub-actions at different levels of the descriptor indicate that the two subactions are independent of each other. No connection indicates an incompatible relation, in which the two
sub-actions cannot occur together. For instance, the sub-actions sitting at the posture level and walking or
running at the locomotion level cannot appear together. The multi-CNN classifier makes predictions at a
single frame. The predictions of the classifier are checked by the connections of the sub-action descriptor.
If the predictions conflict with the designed descriptor, the predictions are revised by Eqs. 10 and 11:





pk  arg max  P  k xi , s j 


k



(10)



 P xi  k , s j P( k , s j ) 

arg max  P  k xi , s j   arg max 




k
k
P  xi , s j 







 arg max  P( k s j ) P  s j  

,

(11)

k

where the new prediction, pk (k ∈ {1, 2, 3}), is given by sub-action αk at the kth level of the descriptor
that maximizes P(αk|xi, sj). xi is the CNN feature vector of the person, and sj (j ∈ {1, 2, …, 12}) is one of
the 12 camera scenes. To simplify the solution, we assume the distribution of P(xi |αk, sj) to be uniform
and we calculate P(αk, sj) from the training data for each sub-action in the 12 camera scenes. It is noted
that there is a relation between a sub-action and a scene; therefore, the joint probability of the action and
the scene is not equal to the multiplication of the prior probability of sub-action P(αk) and the prior
probability of scene P(sj). In addition, the revised predictions are saved in the sub-action history memory
on the basis of the human ID. Finally, temporal smoothing is used to reduce false predictions with regard
to the saved sub-action history. This simple and efficient process works well, in practice, to reduce noise
and decrease sensitivity.

13

4. Experimental Results
In this section, the proposed approach for real-time action detection in surveillance videos is evaluated in
terms of the recognition rate and processing time. Systematic estimation of several hyper-parameters of
the appearance-based temporal features is investigated. In addition, an ablation study of the appearance
temporal features with the CNN-based approach is presented, and the results of the action detection are
shown with the ICVL dataset, which is the only dataset suitable for multiple-individual action detection in
surveillance videos. The average processing time was computed as the average time required to localize
and recognize an actor in a test video. Meanwhile, experiments on the KTH dataset [5] were performed to
compare the performance of the proposed method with those of other existing methods. The experimental
results showed that appearance-based temporal features with a multi-CNN classifier effectively recognize
actions in surveillance videos.

4.1 Evaluation Metrics
To quantify the results, we use the average precision at the frame-based frame-AP and at the video-based
video-AP. The frame-AP was used in other approaches (e.g., object detection and image classification) at
the frame-based evaluation, and video-AP provides an informative measurement for the task of action
detection at the video-based evaluation.
 Frame-AP: Detection is correct if the intersection-over-union with the ground truth and detection
area at that frame is greater than σ, and the action label is correctly predicted.
 Video-AP: Detection is correct if it satisfies the conditions of frame-AP on the spatial domain and
the intersection-over-frames with the ground truth, and if the value for correctly predicted frames for
one action is greater than τ in the temporal domain [47].
In addition, the mean average precision (mAP) for all action categories at the frame-based and the videobased measurement was used to evaluate the proposed approach because multiple actions can appear in
one video, and the distribution of instances within each category is highly unbalanced on the validation
and test set. An intersection-over-union threshold of σ = 0.5 and an intersection-over-frames threshold of
τ = 0.5 were leveraged in all methods and across the experiments. The hyper-parameters n in Eq. 6 and w1
and w2 in Eq. 7 were defined through the following experiments.

4.2 Action Detection on ICVL Dataset
Challenging public datasets promote progress in the computer vision research area. There are many action
public datasets which contain sports (e.g. UCF sports dataset) and user videos (e.g. THUMO’14 and
ActivityNet). However, action categories in these datasets are totally different with the actions in realworld surveillance scenes. Moreover, the video in these datasets has one actor with one single action that
labeled for the video, but in the surveillance video there are multiple actors with different actions at the
same time. Therefore, some action recognition algorithms that focus on sports and user videos are not
appropriate on the surveillance videos. This paper introduces the ICVL dataset to provide a better public
benchmark and helps overcome the limitations of current action detection capabilities in real-world
surveillance environments. In the following, the ICVL dataset and annotation information are presented.

14

Compared to existing surveillance datasets, the ICVL dataset has richer single-person actions, which were
captured from real indoor and outdoor unscripted surveillance footage. One important characteristic of the
ICVL dataset is that it includes different sub-actions of multiple individuals occurring simultaneously at
multiple space locations in the same scene. There are diverse types of sub-action categories on the ICVL
dataset: sitting, standing, stationary, walking, running, nothing, texting, smoking, and others. In terms of
annotation, sub-action annotations are provided for each action, e.g., a person is marked simultaneously
by three sub-actions: standing, walking, and smoking.
The ICVL dataset collected approximately 7 h of ground-based videos across 12 non-overlapping indoor
and outdoor scenes, with a video resolution of 1280 × 640 at 15 Hz. Snapshots of 12 scenes are shown in
Figure 9, including five indoor scenes and seven outdoor scenes. To avoid occlusion as much as possible,
the authors of the dataset installed multiple models of high-definition video cameras on rooftops or high
poles; therefore, the view angles of the cameras were toward dominant ground planes. For a new public
dataset, the ICVL dataset provides a new benchmark for detecting the actions of multiple individuals. The
ICVL dataset together with the annotations is publicly available.1
Annotating a large video dataset is a challenging work, especially while maintaining high quality and low
cost. Annotations on the dataset include two types of ground truths: bounding boxes for persons, and subaction labels for each action from each frame. Only the visible parts of persons are marked by whole and
tight bounding boxes, and they are not extrapolated beyond occlusion by guessing. The annotation of the
bounding boxes follows VATIC [53]. Automatic interpolation was used to recover the bounding boxes
between key frames. Furthermore, the results were vetted and edited again manually. Once spatial
bounding boxes were marked, temporal sub-actions were labeled for each action. One of the fundamental
issues in sub-action labeling is deciding the starting moment and ending moment of an action. For
instance, the action standing up has a posture conversion from sitting to standing. Deciding the confines
between sitting and standing is ambiguous. To avoid ambiguity in action-labeling tasks, we labeled the
actions on the basis of visual information and not of guesswork. For sub-action labeling, the approach
studied by Yuen et al. [54] was referenced.
Table 1: Statistics of the ICVL dataset. The dataset focuses on action detection in video surveillance and
was collected in real-world environments.

Dataset

Resolution

Fps
(Hz)

ICVL

1280 ×
640

15

Duration
(hours)

No. of
subjects

No. of
subaction
categories

No. of
training
videos

No. of
validation
videos

No. of
test
videos

No. of
cameras

Camera
type

7

1793

9

387

50

60

12

Stationary
ground

The statistics of the dataset are summarized in Table 1. The ICVL dataset consists of 387 training videos,
50 validation videos, and 60 test videos (5 videos for each camera in validation and test set). To increase
the difficulty of the dataset, the authors of the dataset used only camera 01 to camera 10 for the training
and validation set and included unseen contexts (camera 11 and camera 12) for the test set. In the
following experiments, this study focused on the recognition of eight sub-action categories (sitting,
standing, stationary, walking, running, nothing, texting, and smoking). Each sub-action was classified in a

15

one-against-the-rest manner, and a number of negative samples (others) were selected from the actions
that were not in these eight categories. Human locations on the training set were manually labeled with
bounding boxes, whereas a human detector was used to automatically localize each person on the test set.
For efficiency, the videos of the ICVL dataset were resized to 640 × 320. The evaluation used the ICVL
test set, and all hyper-parameters were analyzed on the validation set.

Figure 9: Example scenes from 12 different cameras on the ICVL dataset. Seven example scenes are
outdoor scenes, and another five examples are indoor scenes. Camera 08 and Camera 10 were in a similar
context, where two cameras were set on different floors of the same building. The videos recorded by
Camera 09 were excluded from the evaluation of the proposed method because only a few persons
appeared in this scene.
MHI-CNN operates on MHI to capture the motion history of an actor. MHI encodes sequential frames as
memory capacity to represent actions. However, deciding the number of frames n in Eq. 6 is a highly
action-dependent issue. MHI with a large n covers a wide range of action history, but it is insensitive to
current actions. However, MHI with a small n puts the focus on the recent actions and ignores past actions.
In this paper, the number of frames in the MHI was defined by performing a grid search from 5 to 50
frames with an interval of 5. Figure 10 plots the classification accuracy (mAP) at the frame-based and the
video-based measurement for the sub-actions at the locomotion level of the sub-action descriptor. Peaks
and a plateau around the peaks of n were observed at both the frame-based and the video-based
measurement. With n equal to 25 frames, MHI-CNN was able to achieve a consistent performance boost

16

from 1% to 2% of the mAP at the frame-based and video-based measurement. It is worth emphasizing
that recognizing unscripted actions is such a challenging task that a 2% absolute performance
improvement is quite significant. This evidence indicates that correctly recognizing one action would
need approximately 2 s (15 fps in the ICVL videos). This result was also efficient in WAI-CNN for the
third level of the sub-action descriptor. For the remainder of the experimental results, n = 25 was used in
MHI and WAI.

(a)

(b)

Figure 10: Memory capacity in MHI for the locomotion level of the sub-action descriptor. (a) is the results
of the mAP at the frame-based measurement, and (b) is the results of the mAP at the video-based
measurement. The green circles are drawn while training MHI-CNN from 100 to 1K iterations with an
interval of 100. The circles lie over a 1.96 standard error of the mean in red and 1 standard deviation in
blue. The baseline accuracy at n = 10 is given by encoding the temporal features.
The third network, WAI-CNN, operates on the linear combination of the static and motion history cues
and captures specific patterns of the actor. As in Eq. 7, WAI is the weighted average of BDI and MHI. An
ablation study of the proposed approach at the gesture level is presented by evaluating the performance of
the two appearance-based temporal features, BDI and MHI, and their combination. Table 2 shows the
results of each temporal feature with CNN. The best results are highlighted in bold. MHI-CNN always
performed a bit better than BDI-CNN at both frame-AP (45.5% vs. 38.7%, respectively) and video-AP
(55.3% vs. 51.2%, respectively). This is due to the fact that the motion history cues are very informative
for some action patterns. As shown in the ablation study, it is apparent that WAI-CNN, which is a linear
combination of BDI and MHI, performed significantly better for all sub-actions. WAI-CNN was even
better than MHI-CNN at both frame-AP (59.7% vs. 45.5%, respectively) and video-AP (65.2% vs. 55.3%,
respectively). It is clear that shape and motion history cues are complementary toward action recognition.
n = 25, w1 = 0.5, and w2 = 0.5 were used in this experiment.

17

Table 2: Results of the ablation study on the gesture level of ICVL dataset. Frame-AP and video-AP are
reported for BDI-CNN, MHI-CNN, and WAI-CNN. WAI-CNN performed significantly better under both
metrics, showing the significance of the combined cues for the task of gesture-level sub-action
recognition. The leading scores of each label are displayed in bold font.
frame-AP (%)
BDI-CNN
MHI-CNN
WAI-CNN
video-AP (%)
BDI-CNN
MHI-CNN
WAI-CNN

nothing
58.7
64.6
81.6

texting
47.1
58.2
70.6

smoking
10.3
13.7
26.9

mAP
38.7
45.5
59.7

77.2
70.2
82.1

54.7
63.8
75.3

21.7
31.9
38.2

51.2
55.3
65.2

The performance of WAI-CNN with respect to the weights in WAI (Eq. 7) was further evaluated. Figure
11 shows the mAP across sub-actions at the gesture level of the sub-action descriptor at the frame-based
and video-based measurement with regard to varying weights on WAI and training iterations of the
action-CNN. It is noted that using w1 = 1.0 and w2 = 0.0 is equivalent to using a shape cue only, and using
w1 = 0.0 and w2 = 1.0 is equivalent to using only a motion history cue. In addition, we can see that a
significant improvement can be achieved as the shape and motion cues are used together, as shown in
Table 2. In Figure 11, it is noted that w1 = 0.6 and w2 = 0.4 outperformed the other weight combinations
under both metrics. In particular, w1 = 0.6 and w2 = 0.4 show a significant improvement of (relatively) 7%,
on average, at the frame-based measurement and (relatively) 11%, on average, at the video-based
measurement beyond w1 = 0.5 and w2 = 0.5. This implies that the shape cue is more important than the
motion history cue in WAI and is quite different from the results in Table 2. One possible explanation for
this finding is that the motion history cue is more informative than the shape cue if they are used
individually. However, after combining them, the shape cue contributes much more than the motion
history cue for gesture-level action recognition. For the remainder of the experimental results, w1 = 0.6
and w2 = 0.4 were used in WAI.

(a)

(b)

Figure 11: Recognition results with regard to varying weights of WAI and training iterations on WAICNN. (a) mAP of WAI-CNN at the frame-based measurement, and (b) mAP of WAI-CNN at the videobased measurement

18

To evaluate the effectiveness of the action-detection model, we included the full confusion matrixes as a
source of additional insight. Figure 12 shows that the proposed approach achieved a mAP of 76.6% at the
frame-based and 83.5% at the video-based measurement. The proposed method was able to get most of
the sub-action categories correct, except for smoking. The poor performance with smoking was due to the
fact that WAI-CNN captured a specific action cue, i.e., the hand-to-mouth pattern (Figure 7); however,
that pattern does not appear when the person keeps the hand on the mouth and inhales. In other words,
WAI-CNN for smoking without the hand-to-mouth pattern was almost always considered as nothing.
Addressing this problem by using object localization and classification is a very challenging task.
However, most of the misclassified samples are hard to recognize, even by a human. The results of the
experiment show that a sub-action descriptor can eliminate many misclassifications by dividing one
action into many sub-actions that are not at the same levels.

(a)

(b)

Figure 12: Confusion matrixes of the ICVL dataset at the frame-based and video-based measurement for
the action-detection task when using appearance-based temporal features with a multi-CNN classifier.
The horizontal rows are the ground truth, and the vertical columns are the predictions. Each row was
normalized to a sum of 1. (a) The confusion matrix at the frame-based measurement, and (b) the
confusion matrix at the video-based measurement
Inspired by the capability of a deep neural network, one may want to composite multiple sub-actions to
solve the representation problem of an action. Sadeghi and Farhadi et al. [55] and Xu et al. [56]
introduced an actor-action tuple as a visual phrase by considering multiple different categories of actors
undergoing multiple different categories of actions. For example, person riding, dog lying, and car
jumping, etc. They believe that detecting visual phrases are much easier than independently detecting
participated objects because the appearance of objects may change when they participate in relations.
To assess the effectiveness of a multi-CNN classifier with a sub-action descriptor, we constructed 10
visual phrases to train CNN directly and compare them with the proposed method. According to Figure

19

1(c), these visual phrases are sitting with nothing, standing with nothing, walking with nothing, running
with nothing, sitting with texting, standing with texting, walking with texting, sitting with smoking,
standing with smoking, and walking with smoking. For simplicity, sitting while stationary is shortened to
sitting, standing while stationary is shortened to standing, and standing with walking is shortened to
walking. Running with texting and running with smoking were excluded because they are not available in
the ICVL dataset. Different appearance-based temporal features, BDI, MHI, and WAI, can be applied as
an input of CNN. We call them visual phrase BDI-CNN, MHI-CNN, and WAI-CNN, respectively. Table 3
shows the results of the comparison of the performance of the methods with visual phrases on the ICVL
dataset. Notably, the proposed multi-CNN classifier with a sub-action descriptor outperformed the visual
phrase methods. A possible explanation of the above result is that Sadeghi and Farhadi [55] and Xu et al.
[56] considered multiple actor-action interactions, whereas we focued on the context of human actors and
their sub-actions. Experiments of conditional model in [56] indicate similar conclusion that knowing actor
categories can help with action inference. In addition, the number of human-action visual phrases grows
exponentially, but the very large number of phrases that can be built has very few sub-actions. In this way,
it decreases the number of sub-actions and reduces misclassifications.
Table 3: Results of the comparison of frame-mAP performance using methods with visual phrases on the
ICVL dataset. The leading score of mAP is displaced in bold font.
Method
Visual phrase BDI-CNN
Visual phrase MHI-CNN
Visual phrase WAI-CNN
Multi-CNN classifier with a sub-action descriptor

Frame-mAP (%)
42.7
51.1
56.6
76.6

Figure 13 and Figure 14 gives some qualitative localization and recognition results using the proposed
approach on the test set of the ICVL dataset. Each block corresponds to a video from a different camera.
A red bounding box indicates the action in the region of interest and predicted sub-action labels with
corresponding icons; human IDs are in the top-left corner of the bounding boxes, and random color
trajectories are shown in the video. The second image of the third example is an incorrect prediction, with
the true gesture label being smoking.
To provide an evaluation of the processing time, we established an experimental environment on a
computer with an Intel Core i7-3770 CPU at 3.40 GHz with two 4 GB RAM modules. The average
processing time was computed as the average time required to localize actions in the regions of interest
and to recognize actions in a test set. The input video was resized to 640 × 320, and the processing time
was tested on 33 videos shown in Table 4.
The average processing time for one frame was 41.83 ms. Tracking by motion detection was the most
time-consuming part. The three appearance-based temporal features were very fast and are suitable for
real-time surveillance applications. A light CNN architecture took just 3.66 ms to predict three sub-actions,
and the other processes (e.g., initialization, displaying the results, etc.) took 13.06 ms. As can be seen
above, the proposed action detection model ran at around 25 fps.

20

Figure 13: Examples of action localization and recognition results from the ICVL dataset. Each block
corresponds to a video from a different camera. Two frames are shown from each video. The second
frame of the third example is an incorrect prediction, with the true gesture label being smoking.

21

Figure 14: Examples of action localization and recognition results from the ICVL dataset. Each block
corresponds to a video from a different camera. Two frames are shown from each video.

22

Table 4: Average processing time of the proposed action detection model
Module

Motion
detection

Detector

Tracker

BDI

MHI

WAI

CNNs

Postprocessing

Others

Overall

Processing
time (ms)

11.30

12.60

0.23

0.23

0.83

0.10

3.66

0.03

13.06

41.83

4.3 Action Recognition on the KTH Dataset
The proposed method was evaluated on the KTH dataset [5], which consists of six action categories,
namely, boxing, hand-clapping, hand-waving, jogging, running, and walking, performed by 25 subjects.
Similar to Figure 1(c), the sub-action descriptor of KTH can be seen in Figure 15. For instance, the action
boxing consists of sub-action stationary at the locomotion level and sub-action boxing at the gesture level,
and the action running consists of sub-action running at the locomotion level and sub-action nothing at
the gesture level. There is only one sub-action, standing, at the posture level. We just neglected sub-action
standing here.

Figure 15: Structure of the sub-action descriptor on the KTH dataset.
The frame rate of KTH is 25 fps and the resolution is 160 × 120. The ground truth did not supply the
bounding box information of the human area, and, therefore, the multi-CNN classifier was trained using a
full image as an input. In the test phase, the proposed method did not run the human detection and
tracking modules. As in [5], we used the data for eight subjects (person11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) for
the training, the data for eight subjects (person01, 04, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25) for the validation, and the
data for the remaining nine subjects (person02, 03, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 22) for the testing. The hyperparameters were optimized on the validation set. The majority voting was used to produce the labels for a
video sequence based on the prediction for individual frames. A video was correct if and only if the subactions at the locomotion and gesture level were correct.
A performance comparison between the proposed method and the state-of-the-art results on the KTH is
reported in Table 5. Some results, which used leave-one-out cross-validation (24 subjects for the training
and the 1 subject for the test) are not reported here. The performance obtained by the proposed multiCNN classifier with a sub-action descriptor was among the top on the KTH dataset. Moreover, the
proposed method ran at around 86 fps on the KTH dataset; however, other existing works did not consider

23

the processing time, which is critical in surveillance applications. Figure 16 shows the confusion matrix
of the proposed method on the KTH dataset.
Table 5: Comparison of the performance on the KTH dataset. The leading score and fps are displayed in
bold fond.
Method
Kovashka and Grauman [57]
Wang et al. [9]
Gilbert et al. [58]
Baccouche et al. [59]
Zhang et al. [60]
Kaâniche and Brémond [61]
Ji et al. [44]
Bilinski et al. [62]
Chen et al. [63]
Selmi et al. [64]
Liu et al. [65]
Multi-CNN classifier with a sub-action descriptor

mAP (%)
94.5
94.2
94.5
94.4
94.1
94.7
90.2
94.9
94.4
95.8
95.0
96.3

Processing Time (fps)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
86

Figure 16: Confusion matrix of the multi-CNN classifier with a sub-action descriptor on the KTH dataset.
The horizontal rows are the ground truth, and the vertical columns are the predictions. Each row was
normalized to a sum of 1.
Direct training with different appearance-based temporal features for six categories was also evaluated on
the KTH. Table 6 shows the per-class and mAP performance on the KTH. The proposed method
outperformed the others in all of the categories. Owing to the ambiguousness of MHI for interior motions,
the results for sub-action jogging, running, and walking should be improved further.

24

Table 6: Per-class breakdown and mAP on the KTH dataset. The leading scores of each label are
displayed in bold font.
Method

Boxing

BDI-CNN
MHI-CNN
WAI-CNN
Proposed method

86.11
88.89
94.44
100

Handclapping
80.56
91.67
94.44
97.22

Handwaving
72.22
83.33
91.67
100

Jogging

Running

Walking

72.22
86.11
86/11
91.67

80.56
88.89
91/67
94.44

75.00
86.11
88.89
94.44

mAP
(%)
77.78
87.50
91.20
96.30

4.4 Discussions
The following important conclusions can be drawn from the above experimental results. Shape cues (BDI)
lead to captured silhouette features from the spatial domain and can effectively identify the posture of an
actor. They can provide over 95% mAP at the posture level of the sub-action descriptor. Motion history
cues (MHI), even simple and fast temporal features, are of crucial importance for recognizing sub-actions
of the locomotion level: stationary, walking, and running. However, deciding the memory capacity of
MHI is a highly action-dependent issue. As determined from a large set of experiments, correctly
recognizing one action takes approximately 2 s with the ICVL dataset. The combination of shape and
motion history cues (WAI), when the weighted average was used with them, can provide further
improvement in performance for the gesture level of the sub-action descriptor. Shape and motion history
cues are complementary for gesture-level sub-action recognition. From an ablation study, it was noted that
the motion history cue was more informative than the shape cue if the two were used individually.
However, after combining them, the shape cue contributed much more than the motion cue for gesturelevel sub-action recognition. The actor-action visual phrase provides a significant gain over object
detectors coupled with existing methods modeling human-object interactions [55], [56] because the
appearance of the objects may change when they participate in relations. However, for human activity,
the sub-actions at different levels can happen independently with less appearance variations in the
proposed sub-action descriptor. Moreover, it solves the problem of how much the visual phrases grow
exponentially in the number of objects.

5. Conclusions
This paper presented a novel real-world surveillance video dataset and a new approach to real-time action
detection in video surveillance system. The ICVL dataset will stimulate research on multiple action
detection in the years ahead. Extensive experiments demonstrated that a sub-action descriptor delivers a
complete set of information about human actions and significantly eliminates misclassifications by the
large number of actions that are built by few independent sub-actions at different levels. An ablation study
was presented about on the basis of the ICVL dataset and showed the effect of each temporal feature
when considered separately. Shape and motion history cues are complementary, and using both leads to a
significant improvement in action recognition performance. In addition, the proposed action detection
model simultaneously localizes and recognizes the actions of multiple individuals at low computational
cost with acceptable accuracy. The model achieved state-of-the-art result on the KTH dataset and ran at
around 25 fps on the ICVL dataset and at 86 fps on the KTH dataset, which is suitable for real-time
surveillance applications. However, the performance for recognizing gesture-level sub-action (e.g.,

25

smoking) was not adequate. A promising direction for future work is to extend our framework to learn the
joint space of the sub-action descriptor. In addition, more powerful temporal feature methods, such as a
skin-color MHI or optical flow, and other deep architectures of CNNs are being considered.

Acknowledgment
This work was supported by a grant from the Institute for Information and Communications Technology
Promotion (IITP) funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (B0101-15-1282-00010002, Suspicious
pedestrian tracking using multiple fixed cameras).

References
[1] E. Ricci, J. Varadarajan, R. Subramanian, S. Rota Bulo, N. Ahuja, and O. Lanz, “Uncovering
Interactions and Interactors: Joint Estimation of Head, Body Orientation and F-Formations From
Surveillance Videos,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision,
2015, pp. 4660–4668.
[2] B. Wang, M. Ye, X. Li, and F. Zhao, “Abnormal crowd behavior detection using size-adapted spatiotemporal features,” Int. J. Control. Autom. Syst., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 905–912, Oct. 2011.
[3] M. Yang, S. Ji, W. Xu, J. Wang, F. Lv, and K. Yu, “Detecting human actions in surveillance videos,”
in TREC video retrieval evaluation workshop, 2009.
[4] I. S. Kim, H. S. Choi, K. M. Yi, J. Y. Choi, and S. G. Kong, “Intelligent visual surveillance — A
survey,” Int. J. Control. Autom. Syst., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 926–939, Oct. 2010.
[5] C. Schüldt, I. Laptev, and B. Caputo, “Recognizing human actions: A local SVM approach,” in
Proceedings - International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004, vol. 3, pp. 32–36.
[6] L. Gorelick, M. Blank, E. Shechtman, M. Irani, and R. Basri, “Actions as space-time shapes,” IEEE
Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 2247–2253, 2007.
[7] S. Oh et al., “A large-scale benchmark dataset for event recognition in surveillance video,” in
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2011 IEEE Conference on, 2011, pp. 3153–3160.
[8] A. F. Smeaton, P. Over, and W. Kraaij, “Evaluation campaigns and TRECVid,” in Proceedings of
the 8th ACM international workshop on Multimedia information retrieval - MIR ’06, 2006, p. 321.
[9] H. Wang, A. Klaser, C. Schmid, and C. L. Liu, “Action recognition by dense trajectories,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
2011, pp. 3169–3176.
[10] H. Wang and C. Schmid, “Action recognition with improved trajectories,” in Computer Vision
(ICCV), 2013 IEEE International Conference on, 2013, pp. 3551–3558.
[11] Z. Jiang, Z. Lin, and L. S. Davis, “A unified tree-based framework for joint action localization,
recognition and segmentation,” Comput. Vis. Image Underst., vol. 117, no. 10, pp. 1345–1355, 2013.
[12] J. Shotton et al., “Efficient human pose estimation from single depth images,” IEEE Trans. Pattern
Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 2821–40, 2013.
[13] M. Siddiqui and G. Medioni, “Human pose estimation from a single view point, real-time range
sensor,” 2010 IEEE Comput. Soc. Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. - Work., pp. 1–8, 2010.
[14] C. Plagemann, V. Ganapathi, D. Koller, and S. Thrun, “Real-time identification and localization of
body parts from depth images,” in 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
2010, pp. 3108–3113.

26

[15] R. Cutler and L. S. Davis, “Robust real-time periodic motion detection, analysis, and applications,”
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 781–796, 2000.
[16] B. Zhang, L. Wang, Z. Wang, Y. Qiao, and H. Wang, “Real-time Action Recognition with Enhanced
Motion Vector CNNs,” Apr. 2016.
[17] N. Dalal and B. Triggs, “Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection,” in Proceedings 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2005,
2005, vol. I, pp. 886–893.
[18] C. Yu and T. Joachims, “Learning structural SVMs with latent variables,” in … International
Conference on Machine Learning, 2009, pp. 1–8.
[19] C. Bin Jin, S. Li, T. D. Do, and H. Kim, “Real-time human action recognition using CNN over
temporal images for static video surveillance cameras,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics),
2015, vol. 9315, pp. 330–339.
[20] J. Aggarwal and M. Ryoo, “Human activity analysis: A review,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 43, no. 3,
p. 16:1-16:43, 2011.
[21] R. Poppe, “A survey on vision-based human action recognition,” Image Vis. Comput., vol. 28, no. 6,
pp. 976–990, 2010.
[22] B. Sapp, D. Weiss, and B. Taskar, “Parsing human motion with stretchable models,” in Proceedings
of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2011, pp.
1281–1288.
[23] A. Cherian, J. Mairal, and K. Alahari, “Mixing body-part sequences for human pose estimation,” in
in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2014, pp. 2361–2368.
[24] J. Shotton et al., “Real-time human pose recognition in parts from single depth images,” Commun.
ACM, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 116–124, 2013.
[25] A. F. Bobick and J. W. Davis, “The recognition of human movement using temporal templates,”
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 257–267, 2001.
[26] J. W. Davis and A. F. Bobick, “The representation and recognition of human movement using
temporal templates,” Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., vol. 23, no.
402, pp. 928–934, 1997.
[27] S. Ali, A. Basharat, and M. Shah, “Chaotic invariants for human action recognition,” in Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2007.
[28] A. Fathi and G. Mori, “Action recognition by learning mid-level motion features,” in 26th IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2008.
[29] P. Dollár, V. Rabaud, G. Cottrell, and S. Belongie, “Behavior recognition via sparse spatio-temporal
features,” in Proceedings - 2nd Joint IEEE International Workshop on Visual Surveillance and
Performance Evaluation of Tracking and Surveillance, VS-PETS, 2005, vol. 2005, pp. 65–72.
[30]D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 60,
no. 2, pp. 91–110, 2004.
[31] T. Brox, N. Papenberg, and J. Weickert, “High accuracy optical flow estimation based on a theory
for warping,” Comput. Vis. - ECCV 2004, vol. 4, no. May, pp. 25–36, 2004.
[32] N. Dalal, B. Triggs, and C. Schmid, “Human detection using oriented histograms of flow and
appearance,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2006, vol. 3952 LNCS, pp. 428–441.

27

[33] H. Wang, A. Kläser, C. Schmid, and C. L. Liu, “Dense trajectories and motion boundary descriptors
for action recognition,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 60–79, 2013.
[34] F. Perronnin, J. Sánchez, and T. Mensink, “Improving the Fisher kernel for large-scale image
classification,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2010, vol. 6314 LNCS, no. PART 4, pp. 143–156.
[35] I. Laptev, “On space-time interest points,” in International Journal of Computer Vision, 2005, vol.
64, no. 2–3, pp. 107–123.
[36] I. Kim, S. Oh, A. Vahdat, K. Cannons, a. G. A. Perera, and G. Mori, “Segmental multi-way local
pooling for video recognition,” in Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on
Multimedia - MM ’13, 2013, pp. 637–640.
[37] A. Klaser, M. Marszalek, and C. Schmid, “A spatio-temporal descriptor based on 3D-gradients,” in
Proceedings of the British Machine Conference, 2008, p. 99.1-99.10.
[38] Y. Li, Z. Ye, and J. M. Rehg, “Delving into egocentric actions,” in The IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015, pp. 287–295.
[39] A. Vahdat, B. Gao, M. Ranjbar, and G. Mori, “A discriminative key pose sequence model for
recognizing human interactions,” in Computer Vision Workshops (ICCV Workshops), 2011 IEEE
International Conference on, 2011, pp. 1729–1736.
[40] T. Lan, Y. Wang, W. Yang, S. N. Robinovitch, and G. Mori, “Discriminative latent models for
recognizing contextual group activities,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 34, no. 8, pp.
1549–1562, 2012.
[41] Z. Lan, L. Ming, L. Xuanchong, A. G. Hauptmann, and B. Raj, “Beyond Gaussian pyramid: multiskip feature stacking for action recognition,” in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015, pp. 204–212.
[42] B. Ni, X. Yang, and S. Gao, “Progressively parsing interactional objects for fine grained action
detection,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2016, pp.
1020–1028.
[43] S. Yeung, O. Russakovsky, G. Mori, and L. Fei-Fei, “End-to-end Learning of Action Detection from
Frame Glimpses in Videos,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
CVPR, 2016.
[44] S. Ji, W. Xu, M. Yang, and K. Yu, “3D convolutional neural networks for human action
recognition,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 221–231, 2013.
[45] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Two-stream convolutional networks for action recognition in
videos,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., pp. 568–576, 2014.
[46] A. Karpathy, G. Toderici, S. Shetty, T. Leung, R. Sukthankar, and F. F. Li, “Large-scale video
classification with convolutional neural networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2014, pp. 1725–1732.
[47] G. Gkioxari and J. Malik, “Finding action tubes,” in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015, pp. 759–768.
[48] S. Li, “Human re-identification using soft biometrics in video surveillance,” 2015.
[49] Z. Zivkovic, “Improved adaptive Gaussian mixture model for background subtraction,” in
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004., 2004,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 28–31.
[50] B. Babenko and S. Belongie, “Visual tracking with online Multiple Instance Learning,” in 2009
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2009, pp. 983–990.

28

[51] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “ImageNet classification with deep convolutional
neural networks,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., pp. 1–9, 2012.
[52] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik, “Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object
detection and semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2014, pp. 580–587.
[53] C. Vondrick, D. Patterson, and D. Ramanan, “Efficiently Scaling up Crowdsourced Video
Annotation,” Int. J. Comput. Vis., vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 184–204, 2012.
[54] J. Yuen, B. Russell, C. Liu, and A. Torralba, “LabelMe video: Building a video database with human
annotations,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2009, pp.
1451–1458.
[55] M. A. Sadeghi and A. Farhadi, “Recognition using visual phrases,” in IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR, 2011, pp. 1745–1752.
[56] C. Xu, S. H. Hsieh, C. Xiong, and J. J. Corso, “Can humans fly? Action understanding with multiple
classes of actors,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision
and Pattern Recognition, 2015, vol. 07–12–June, pp. 2264–2273.
[57] A. Kovashka and K. Grauman, “Learning a hierarchy of discriminative space-time neighborhood
features for human action recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2010, pp. 2046–2053.
[58] A. Gilbert, J. Illingworth, and R. Bowden, “Action recognition using mined hierarchical compound
features,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 883–897, 2011.
[59] M. Baccouche, F. Mamalet, and C. Wolf, “Sequential deep learning for human action recognition,”
Proc. Int. Conf. Hum. Behav. Underst., pp. 29–39, 2011.
[60] Y. Zhang, X. Liu, M. Chang, W. Ge, and T. Chen, “Spatio-temporal phrases for activity
recognition,” in European Conference on Computer Vision, ECCV, 2012, pp. 707–721.
[61] M. B. Kaâniche and F. Brémond, “Recognizing gestures by learning local motion signatures of hog
descriptors,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2247–2258, 2012.
[62] P. Bilinski, E. Corvee, S. Bak, and F. Bremond, “Relative dense tracklets for human action
recognition,” in 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and
Gesture Recognition, FG 2013, 2013, pp. 1–7.
[63] F. Chen, N. Sang, X. Kuang, H. Gan, and C. Gao, “Action recognition through discovering
distinctive action parts,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, vol. 32, no. 2, p. 173, Feb. 2015.
[64] M. Selmi, M. El-Yacoubi, and B. Dorizzi, “Two-layer discriminative model for human activity
recognition,” IET Comput. Vis., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 273–279, 2016.
[65] L. Liu, L. Shao, X. Li, and K. Lu, “Learning spatio-temporal representations for action recognition:
A genetic programming approach,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 158–170, 2016.

29

