SCALE: Semantic- and Confidence-Aware Conditional Variational Autoencoder for Zero-shot Skeleton-based Action Recognition
Organizations: School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada · School of Information Science and Technology, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo, China
Abstract
Zero-shot skeleton-based action recognition (ZSAR) aims to recognize action classes without any training skeletons from those classes, relying instead on auxiliary semantics from text. Existing approaches frequently depend on explicit skeleton-text alignment, which can be brittle when action names underspecify fine-grained dynamics and when unseen classes are semantically confusable. We propose SCALE, a lightweight and deterministic Semantic- and Confidence-Aware Listwise Energy-based framework that formulates ZSAR as class-conditional energy ranking. SCALE builds a text-conditioned Conditional Variational Autoencoder where frozen text representations parameterize both the latent prior and the decoder, enabling likelihood-based evaluation for unseen classes without generating samples at test time. To separate competing hypotheses, we introduce a semantic- and confidence-aware listwise energy loss that emphasizes semantically similar hard negatives and incorporates posterior uncertainty to adapt decision margins and reweight ambiguous training instances. Additionally, we utilize a latent prototype contrast objective to align posterior means with text-derived latent prototypes, improving semantic organization and class separability without direct feature matching. Experiments on NTU-60 and NTU-120 datasets show that SCALE consistently improves over prior VAE- and alignment-based baselines while remaining competitive with diffusion-based methods.
Figures & tables
| Method | Venue | NTU-60 (Acc, %) | NTU-120 (Acc, %) | ||||||
| [55/5] | [48/12] | [40/20] | [30/30] | [110/10] | [96/24] | [80/40] | [60/60] | ||
| ReViSE [ 18 ] | ICCV2017 | 53.9 | 17.5 | 24.3 | 14.8 | 55.0 | 32.4 | 19.5 | 8.3 |
| JPoSE [ 45 ] | ICCV2019 | 64.8 | 28.8 | 20.1 | 12.4 | 51.9 | 32.4 | 13.7 | 7.7 |
| CADA-VAE [ 39 ] | CVPR2019 | 76.8 | 29.0 | 16.2 | 11.5 | 59.5 | 35.8 | 10.6 | 5.7 |
| SynSE [ 15 ] | ICIP2021 | 75.8 | 33.3 | 19.9 | 12.0 | 62.7 | 38.7 | 13.6 | 7.7 |
| SMIE [ 48 ] | ACMM2023 | 78.0 | 40.2 | - | - | 65.7 | 45.3 | - | - |
| Method | Parameters (M) | GFLOPs | Effective GFLOPs | Inference Time (ms) | Effective Inference Time (ms) |
| TDSM [ 10 ] | 261.21 | 3.203 | 32.03 † | 10.314 | 103.14 † |
| SCALE (Ours) | 2.43 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.454 | 0.454 |
| † TDSM averages over 10 inference trials. | |||||
| Training Loss | NTU-60 (Acc, %) | NTU-120 (Acc, %) | ||
| [55/5] | [48/12] | [110/10] | [96/24] | |
| 78.7 | 43.3 | 65.1 | 47.1 | |
| 81.1 ↑2.4 | 45.7 ↑2.4 | 69.0 ↑3.9 | 50.6 ↑3.5 | |
| 82.7 ↑4.0 | 46.6 ↑3.3 | 70.6 ↑5.5 | 52.2 ↑5.1 | |
| 84.5 ↑5.8 | 50.0 ↑6.7 | 73.6 ↑8.5 | 54.9 ↑7.8 | |
| NTU-60 (Acc, %) | NTU-120 (Acc, %) | |||
| [55/5] | [48/12] | [110/10] | [96/24] | |
| 83.9 | 49.6 | 72.9 | 54.3 | |
| 84.5 ↑0.6 | 50.0 ↑0.4 | 73.6 ↑0.7 | 54.9 ↑0.6 | |
| 84.3 ↑0.4 | 50.1 ↑0.5 | 73.5 ↑0.6 | 54.4 ↑0.1 | |
| 84.4 ↑0.5 | 49.8 ↑0.2 | 73.3 ↑0.4 | 54.5 ↑0.2 | |
| Uncertainty Modeling | NTU-60 (Acc, %) | NTU-120 (Acc, %) | ||||
| [55/5] | [48/12] | [110/10] | [96/24] | |||
| Fixed margin, No reweighting | 0 | 0 | 83.7 | 48.2 | 73.1 | 53.2 |
| Uncertainty-adaptive margin only | 0.5 | 0 | 84.3 ↑0.6 | 49.4 ↑1.2 | 73.5 ↑0.4 | 54.5 ↑1.3 |
| Uncertainty-based reweighting only | 0 | 2.0 | 84.0 ↑0.3 | 48.6 ↑0.4 | 73.3 ↑0.2 | 53.9 ↑0.7 |
| Full loss | 0.5 | 2.0 | 84.5 ↑0.8 | 50.0 ↑1.8 | 73.6 ↑0.5 | 54.9 ↑1.7 |