G3Ego: Gaze-Guided Graphs for Egocentric Action Understanding
Organizations: University of Zagreb, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, Zagreb, Croatia · University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Abstract
Egocentric action understanding is often addressed using large video models pretrained on extensive exocentric datasets. However, many first-person actions depend on a small number of hand-object interactions involving only a few relevant entities. We propose G3Ego, a graph-based framework for egocentric action understanding that uses gaze as a structural cue to identify action-relevant entities in the scene. From sparsely sampled frames, G3Ego constructs action scene graphs from vision-language descriptions, grounded objects, and hand cues, and then prunes irrelevant entities using the camera wearer's gaze. The resulting graph embeddings are temporally aggregated for action recognition and anticipation. Unlike prior work that uses gaze primarily as an auxiliary modality or attention signal, G3Ego incorporates gaze directly into graph construction, producing efficient and interpretable representations focused on action-relevant interactions. Experiments on EGTEA Gaze+ and MECCANO show that G3Ego achieves competitive performance compared with video-based approaches and consistently improves Macro-F1 under class-imbalanced evaluation, while avoiding reliance on computationally expensive video pretraining. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of gaze-guided graph representations for egocentric action understanding.
Figures & tables
| Graph Type | Temporal Modeling | N Frames | Global | Object | Gaze Pruning | Hand | Top-1 | Top-5 | Macro F1 |
| Effect of Object Features | |||||||||
| FG | LSTM | 10 | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | 25.58 | 60.75 | 8.29 |
| FG | LSTM | 10 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 37.34 | 70.39 | 8.61 |
| Effect of Gaze-Guided Graph Pruning | |||||||||
| FG | LSTM | 10 | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | 37.34 | 70.39 | 8.61 |
| G3Ego | LSTM | 10 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | 37.90 | 70.88 | 10.63 |
| Method | Venue | Modality | Top-1 | Top-5 | Macro-F1 | Train. Params |
| Majority class baseline | – | – | 27.31 | 51.22 | 0.72 | – |
| SlowFast [ 28 ] | CVPRW’23 | RGB | 45.16 | 73.75 | 18.91 | 68M |
| SlowFast [ 28 ] | CVPRW’23 | RGB+Depth+Gaze | 49.66 | 77.82 | – | 68M |
| LUBECK UniFormer ens. [ 28 ] | CVPRW’23 | RGB+Depth | 51.82 | 83.35 | – | 540M |
| UCF Swin3D-B [ 28 ] | CVPRW’23 | RGB+Depth | 52.82 | 83.85 | – | 176M |
| UNIBZ 8-model ens. [ 8 ] | ISIEA’24 | RGB+Depth | 52.57 | 81.53 | – | 194M |
| Method | Venue | Modality | S1 | S2 | S3 | Avg mAcc | Avg Top-1 |
| Two Stream [ 68 ] | NeurIPS’14 | RGB + Optical Flow | 43.78 | 41.47 | 40.28 | 41.84 | – |
| EgoIDT+Gaze [ 36 ] | CVPR’15 | RGB + IDT + Gaze | 42.55 | 37.30 | 37.60 | 39.13 | – |
| I3D+EgoConv [ 69 ] | CVPR’16 | RGB + Hands + Head + Gaze | 54.19 | 51.45 | 49.41 | 51.68 | – |
| TSN [ 75 ] | ECCV’16 | RGB + Optical Flow | 58.01 | 55.01 | 54.78 | 55.93 | – |
| Sudhakaran et al. [ 71 ] | ECCVW’18 | RGB | 52.40 | 50.09 | 49.11 | 50.53 | – |
| LSTA [ 70 ] | CVPR’19 | RGB + Optical Flow | 53.00 | – | – | – | – |
| Method | Venue | Modality | Top-1 | Top-5 | Macro-F1 | Train. Params |
| Majority class baseline | – | – | 27.21 | 51.15 | 0.71 | – |
| TempAgg [ 65 ] | ECCV’20 | OHG | 19.69 | 25.37 | 3.11 | 123M |
| AVT [ 16 ] | ICCV’21 | OHG | 27.43 | 53.38 | 3.68 | 392M |
| RULSTM [ 28 ] | CVIU’23 | OHG | 24.08 | 58.23 | 2.47 | 67M |
| VLMAH [ 44 ] | ICCV-W’23 | OHG | 28.90 | 58.13 | 0.72 | 45M |
| MMTF-RU [ 49 ] | T-ASE’25 | OHG | 29.75 | 64.46 | – | 33.2M |
| Dataset | Graph | Nodes | Edges | Avg. max distance | Global Efficiency |
| MECCANO | FG | 13.57 | 8.13 | 3.29 | 0.257 |
| G3Ego | 3.75 | 2.75 | 2.00 | 0.771 | |
| EGTEA | FG | 4.51 | 3.41 | 2.03 | 0.703 |
| G3Ego | 3.77 | 2.77 | 2.00 | 0.769 |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Component | Output | Params | GFLOPs | Memory |
| Qwen3-VL-32B | 160 tokens | 33.36B | 27,500.8 | 63.91 GiB |
| DINOv3 ViT-L/16 | 1024-D | 303.13M | 121.76 | 1,176.52 MiB |
| GroundingDINO | 256-D | 232.90M | 1,312.93 | 2,160.50 MiB |
| TempAgg, pruned | 352-D | 105M | 0.435 | 421.84 MiB |
| TempAgg, full | 352-D | 105M | 0.47 | 422.44 MiB |
| Input Representation | Object Selection | Gaze Aux. | Temporal Model | N Frames | Top-1 | Top-5 | F1 |
| Effect of VLM Semantic Prior | |||||||
| Majority class baseline | – | ✗ | – | – | 27.31 | 51.22 | 0.72 |
| VLM caption CLIP [ 58 ] embeddings | – | ✗ | LSTM | 10 | 3.86 | 24.76 | 0.46 |
| Effect of Pruning Strategy | |||||||
| FG | – | ✗ | LSTM | 10 | 37.34 | 70.39 | 8.61 |
| G3Ego | Random-2 | ✗ | LSTM | 10 | 21.22 | 57.07 | 7.95 |
| Method | Venue | Pretraining | Modality / Supervision | S1 | S2 | S3 | Avg mAcc | Avg Top-1 |
| Two Stream [ 68 ] | NeurIPS’14 | – | RGB + Optical Flow | 43.78 | 41.47 | 40.28 | 41.84 | – |
| EgoIDT+Gaze [ 36 ] | CVPR’15 | – | RGB + IDT + Gaze | 42.55 | 37.30 | 37.60 | 39.13 | – |
| I3D+EgoConv [ 69 ] | CVPR’16 | – | RGB + Hands + Head Motion + Gaze | 54.19 | 51.45 | 49.41 | 51.68 | – |
| TSN [ 75 ] | ECCV’16 | – | RGB + Optical Flow | 58.01 | 55.01 | 54.78 | 55.93 | – |
| Sudhakaran et al. [ 71 ] | ECCVW’18 | – | RGB | 52.40 | 50.09 | 49.11 | 50.53 | – |
| LSTA [ 70 ] | CVPR’19 | – | RGB + Optical Flow | 53.00 | – | – | – | – |
Egocentric Video Understanding
Egocentric video understanding studies how AI interprets first-person video to recognize actions, track interactions, reason about space and time, and assist users.
See all 203 papers