or ResNet 101 backbone. As discussed in Sec. 3.6, Girdharet al. [14] and LFB [61] can be considered as special
cases of our graph model as they model only spatial andTable 5: Comparison to state-of-the-art on UCF101-24. We report
the Frame AP at 0.5 using the corrected annotations of [51].
Method Modality Mean AP
ACT [26] RGB + Flow 69.5
Song et al. [52] RGB + Flow 72.1
STEP [67] RGB + Flow 75.0
Guet al. [17] RGB + Flow 76.3
MOC [36] RGB + Flow 78.0
SlowFast (R50) RGB 76.6
SlowFast (R101) RGB 77.4
Ours (R50) RGB 78.6
Ours (R101) RGB 79.3
temporal edges respectively. Our method, which constructs
a spatio-temporal graph, outperforms both. Note that we
outperform LFB [61] across both ResNet 50 and ResNet
101 backbones. Zhang et al . [71] also model a spatiotemporal interactions, but employ three separate graphs
with a hand-crafted aggregation function which we also outperform with our single, coherent spatio-temporal graph.
Accurate video understanding involves reasoning about the relationships
between actors, objects and their environment, often over long temporal
intervals. In this paper, we propose a message passing graph neural network
that explicitly models these spatio-temporal relations and can use explicit
representations of objects, when supervision is available, and implicit
representations otherwise. Our formulation generalises previous structured
models for video understanding, and allows us to study how different design
choices in graph structure and representation affect the model's performance.
We demonstrate our method on two different tasks requiring relational reasoning
in videos -- spatio-temporal action detection on AVA and UCF101-24, and video
scene graph classification on the recent Action Genome dataset -- and achieve
state-of-the-art results on all three datasets. Furthermore, we show
quantitatively and qualitatively how our method is able to more effectively
model relationships between relevant entities in the scene.
Anurag Arnab Chen Sun Cordelia Schmid