Understanding characteristics and activities of individuals in complex multi-person environments is crucial for real-world applications. However, existing datasets often simplify this problem to grounded group activity recognition, single-person activity recognition, or close-set activity recognition, thus limiting the generalizability of models trained on these datasets. In this work, we introduce the task of Grounded Human-Attributed Description and Activity Recognition (GHADAR), which involves describing the characteristics and activity descriptions of every person in a video, provided the location of the person in the video, which is more practical for real-world applications. To facilitate this, we introduce a new dataset derived from AVA-Actions by generating open-set captions for the person description and activity. In addition, we propose a novel method to effectively utilize the information contained in grounding during training by constraining the cross-attention masks during training in VLMs to improve performance for this task. Our experiments show that our method outperforms SOTA VLMs on this task. Finally, we demonstrate the limitations of existing evaluation metrics, which are overly reliant on human-annotations and exact text-text matching. As an added video-based evaluation, we propose a holistic VLM-based evaluation schema that compares concepts {\em directly} between the video and the generated predictions. Thus, in this work, we develop a complete framework for GHADAR, including a dataset, a novel method and an evaluation schema, thereby establishing a strong foundation for future research in this domain.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Our proposed task with respect to existing tasks. While existing tasks are more relaxed, we propose an open-set human description and activity recognition that is more generic.
Dataset
Size (# clips)
Human-Centric?
Grounded for every frame?
Open-Set Captions
Multi-Activity?
Multi-Person?
HC-STVG ( [ 30 ] )
15K
✓
✓
✓
✓
VidSTG ( [ 36 , 28 ] )
7.8K
✓
✓
ActivityNet Entities ( [ 40 ] )
15K
✓
✓
AVA-Actions ( [ 9 ] )
450
✓
✓
✓
✓
AVA-Kinteics ( [ 16 ] )
230k
✓
✓
✓
MSR-VTT ( [ 34 ] )
10K
✓
Table 1: Existing datasets. Multi-Activity represents whether captions are available for multiple activities done by the person in the video. Multi-Person represents whether annotations are available for multiple people appearing in the video. Most of the video clips in these datasets are short (0-20s) except for AVA-Actions and MEVA, which have 15 min long and 5 min long annotated videos, respectively. * - can be obtained with minimal processing
Figure 2: Examples from the AVA-Captions dataset. The captions in black are generated using expert-VLM while red action labels are provided in the original AVA-Actions dataset. More examples are provided in the supplementary.
Figure 3: The two phases of CAMP. In the first phase, the modified causal mask for the answer tokens makes sure they can only attend to the vision tokens corresponding to the relaxed bounding box around the person for which the caption is being generated. In the second phase, the model is trained with a lower learning rate with a default attention mask, which allows insertion of global context into the attention weights. Here, TV : vision tokens, TQ : question tokens, TA : Answer tokens. The illustration shows only one frame but the masking is done using all frames of the video.
AVA-Captions
HC-STVG
Method
BLEU4 ( ↑ )
METEOR ( ↑ )
ROUGE ( ↑ )
CLIP Sim ( ↑ )
SBert Sim ( ↑ )
BLEU4 ( ↑ )
METEOR ( ↑ )
ROUGE ( ↑ )
CLIP Sim ( ↑ )
Sbert Sim ( ↑ )
LLAVA-OV 0.5B
28.29
54.22
59.47
0.75
0.54
18.70
53.94
57.47
0.86
0.48
InternVL3-1B
31.07
58.17
63.09
0.77
0.58
25.87
55.08
65.54
0.87
0.60
Qwen2.5VL-3B
36.46
63.17
68.06
0.82
0.65
25.66
55.07
65.81
0.88
0.62
InternVL3 + CAMP (Ours)
32.02
59.90
64.07
0.79
0.60
27.11
57.90
66.10
0.88
0.61
Qwen2.5VL-3B + CAMP (Ours)
36.48
63.62
68.43
0.83
0.67
27.33
57.84
67.82
0.88
0.64
Table 2: Comparison of CAMP against existing methods for Subject Description
AVA-Captions
HC-STVG
Method
BLEU4 ( ↑ )
METEOR ( ↑ )
ROUGE ( ↑ )
CLIP Sim ( ↑ )
SBert Sim ( ↑ )
BLEU4 ( ↑ )
METEOR ( ↑ )
ROUGE ( ↑ )
CLIP Sim ( ↑ )
Sbert Sim ( ↑ )
LLAVA-OV 0.5B
13.39
37.71
39.69
0.85
0.53
8.34
32.43
41.78
0.82
0.40
InternVL3-1B
19.34
44.91
46.28
0.89
0.63
8.60
32.66
38.03
0.85
0.42
Qwen2.5VL-3B
19.30
43.02
47.35
0.90
0.63
8.97
31.52
40.01
0.86
0.47
InternVL3 + CAMP (Ours)
20.11
46.15
46.82
0.90
0.65
11.17
35.67
42.23
0.87
0.46
Qwen2.5VL-3B + CAMP (Ours)
20.14
43.40
47.90
0.91
0.65
10.64
33.08
40.65
0.86
0.47
Table 3: Comparison of CAMP against existing methods for Activity Description
( Δw,Δh )
(0,0)
(20,20)
(50,50)
(100,100)
(100,0)
(100,20) (used)
(100,50)
(20,50)
Subject Sbert
0.54
0.54
0.57
0.58
0.60
0.61
0.60
0.55
Subject METEOR
52.21
52.54
54.96
57.09
56.98
57.90
56.59
53.64
Subject ROUGE
61.73
61.67
63.88
65.87
66.38
66.10
65.92
62.30
Activity Sbert
0.44
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.44
Activity METEOR
33.32
33.04
34.00
34.40
35.00
35.67
34.87
33.55
Table 4: Effect of relaxations of bounding box during CAMP on HC-STVG dataset. The columns represent the one-sided changes to width ( Δw ) and height ( Δh ) in terms of percentage of the total width and height. For example, (20,20) signifies 20% relaxation in width and height on each side, thus making the relaxed bounding box as [max(0,x1−0.2w),max(0,y1−0.2h),min(x2+0.2w,448),min(y2+0.2h,448)]
Figure 4: Qualitative examples from HC-STVG (left two) and AVA-Captions (right). HC-STVG has captions only for one person, whereas AVA-Captions has captions for both people in the video.
Figure 5: Examples of predictions wrongly given low metrics. In the first row, the predicted events occur in the video but are not captured by the GT annotation, leading to low SBert scores. Similarly, in the second row, the GT and predicted ways to describe the woman are valid, yet subject SBert score is low due to lexical mismatch. This necessitates the need for VLM-based metrics. More examples in the supplementary
VLM Evaluator
Nova Pro v1
Qwen2.5 VL 32B
Dataset
AVA-Captions
HC-STVG
AVA-Captions
HC-STVG
Method
Avg
Avg
Acc ( ↑ )
Avg
Avg
Acc ( ↑ )
Avg
Avg
Acc ( ↑ )
Avg
Avg
Acc ( ↑ )
CRT ( ↑ )
UNQ( ↑ )
CRT ( ↑ )
UNQ ( ↑ )
CRT ( ↑ )
UNQ( ↑ )
CRT ( ↑ )
UNQ( ↑ )
LLAVA-OV 0.5B
2.84
2.06
0.29
3.99
1.94
0.34
2.89
2.29
0.38
2.86
2.46
0.30
InternVL3-1B
3.03
2.07
0.32
4.03
2.09
0.40
3.05
2.34
0.41
3.03
2.47
0.37
Qwen2.5VL-3B
3.46
2.35
0.43
4.36
2.04
0.39
3.44
2.58
0.66
3.25
2.53
0.33
Table 5: Comparison of CAMP against existing methods for Subject Description with VLM-based metrics using Nova Pro v1 and Qwen2.5 VL 32B as expert VLMs
VLM Evaluator
Nova Pro v1
Qwen2.5 VL 32B
Dataset
AVA-Captions
HC-STVG
AVA-Captions
HC-STVG
Method
Avg
Avg
Acc ( ↑ )
Avg
Avg
Acc ( ↑ )
Avg
Avg
Acc ( ↑ )
Avg
Avg
Acc ( ↑ )
CRT ( ↑ )
CMP( ↑ )
CRT ( ↑ )
CMP ( ↑ )
CRT ( ↑ )
CMP( ↑ )
CRT ( ↑ )
CMP( ↑ )
LLAVA-OV 0.5B
3.24
2.39
0.54
2.21
1.17
0.08
3.59
3.17
0.75
3.07
2.43
0.53
InternVL3-1B
3.54
2.65
0.64
3.17
1.94
0.41
3.80
3.40
0.83
3.93
3.28
0.88
Qwen2.5VL-3B
3.61
2.83
0.68
3.51
2.07
0.48
3.86
3.51
0.85
3.96
3.18
0.87
Table 6: Comparison of CAMP against existing methods for Activity Description with VLM-based metrics using Nova Pro v1 and Qwen2.5 VL 32B as expert VLMs
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 1: Examples from the AVA-Captions dataset. The captions in black are generated using expert-VLM while red action labels are provided in the original AVA-Actions dataset.
Phase
Total video clips
Minimum # People
Maximum # People
Mean # People
Median # People
Training
36815
1
10
1.96
2
Testing
11095
1
11
1.98
2
Appendix
Table 1: Statistics for the number of people per video clip in the AVA-Captions dataset
HC-STVG Subject
HC-STVG Activity
Phase 1
Phase 2
BLEU4 ( ↑ )
METEOR ( ↑ )
ROUGE ( ↑ )
CLIP Sim ( ↑ )
SBert Sim ( ↑ )
BLEU4 ( ↑ )
METEOR ( ↑ )
ROUGE ( ↑ )
CLIP Sim ( ↑ )
SBert Sim ( ↑ )
✓
20.09
45.05
52.65
0.58
0.36
5.15
23.88
24.55
0.57
0.26
✓
25.87
55.08
65.54
0.87
0.60
8.60
32.66
38.03
0.85
0.42
✓
✓
27.11
57.90
66.10
0.88
0.61
11.17
35.67
42.23
0.87
0.46
AVA-Captions Subject
AVA-Captions Activity
Phase 1
Phase 2
BLEU4 ( ↑ )
METEOR ( ↑ )
ROUGE ( ↑ )
CLIP Sim ( ↑ )
SBert Sim ( ↑ )
BLEU4 ( ↑ )
METEOR ( ↑ )
ROUGE ( ↑ )
CLIP Sim ( ↑ )
SBert Sim ( ↑ )
Appendix
Table 2: Ablation on the phases of CAMP. The first row denotes the baseline without CAMP, next row denotes only Phase 1 without Phase 2 and last row denotes the best method, which includes both Phase 1 and Phase 2,
Figure 2: Examples of predictions which are lexically dissimilar from the ground truth but are equally valid for the given video
Figure 3: A limiting case of VLM-based evaluation metrics. CMP and UNQ are pessimistically given a score of 1 even though the predicted caption describes the person uniquely and describes some of the activities of the subject.
Procedural activities follow well-defined structures: whether we consider a cooking recipe or a mechanic repairing a car, these activities naturally decompose in a hierarchy of steps and sub-steps. Traditional approaches for step grounding require extensive annotations and scale poorly. Instead, we argue that such hierarchical structure can emerge naturally from uncurated videos of human activities through recurring patterns of co-occurring actions and activities. Our approach builds on HiERO, a weakly-supervised representation learning approach that maps close in the feature space actions that are functionally related to each other, leveraging only fine-grained action-level narrations. In this feature space, procedure steps can be detected by a simple clustering, with no additional task-specific fine-tuning. For the Ego4D Step Grounding challenge, we augment this approach by ensuring fine and coarse level agreement in step assignments, enforcing strict temporal monotonicity of the grounded steps and post-processing the detected steps to reduce the impact of noisy predictions. We call this approach HiERO-StepG and it achieves 56.27 % on the R@1 (IoU = 0.3) metric on the global leaderboard at submission time, ranking second while being completely zero-shot and not requiring procedure-specific annotations. Project page: https://github.com/andreazenotto/HiERO-StepG.
Andrea Zenotto, Simone Alberto Peirone, Francesca Pistilli +1
Wearable human activity recognition (HAR) has made steady progress, yet much of this progress remains grounded in fixed-window, closed-set classification benchmarks. This formulation is poorly matched to everyday behavior, where activities are open-ended, unscripted, personalized, variable in duration, and often compositional. To address this mismatch, we introduce ActivityNarrated, an open-ended narrative paradigm for language-grounded wearable activity understanding. We formulate this setting as dense sensor signal captioning with a comprehensive benchmark protocol that measures temporal localization, caption quality, sensor-language alignment, conventional closed-set classification as a downstream diagnostic, and additional robustness measures. We further present ActNarrator, a 3-stage architecture that discretizes continuous IMU signals into reusable motion tokens and uses an external frozen small language model to generate open-vocabulary activity captions. Experiments show that our method provides high quality dense sensor captioning with superior adaptivity and robustness, enabling various downstream tasks by turning sensor-based human activity understanding into sensor-grounded text-level reasoning. This includes downstream classification where ActNarrator outperforms state-of-the-art HAR models by 3.8 - 31.6 % in Macro-F1. This paradigm also enables novel activity understanding capabilities such as complex question-answering over long time horizons.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in general video understanding, yet they often struggle with the fine-grained comprehension crucial for real-world applications requiring nuanced interpretation of human actions and interactions. While some recent human-centric benchmarks evaluate aspects of model behaviour such as fairness/ethics, emotion perception, and broader human-centric metrics, they do not combine long-form videos, very dense QA coverage, and frame-level spatial/temporal grounding at scale. To bridge this gap, we introduce FineBench, a human-centric video question answering (VQA) benchmark specifically designed to assess fine-grained understanding. FineBench comprises 199,420 multiple-choice QA pairs densely annotated across 64 long-form videos (15 minutes each), focusing on detailed person movement, person interaction, and object manipulation, including compositional actions. Our extensive evaluation reveals that while proprietary models like GPT-5 achieve respectable performance, current open-source VLMs significantly underperform, struggling particularly with spatial reasoning in multi-person scenes and distinguishing subtle differences in human movements and interactions. To address these identified weaknesses, we propose FineAgent, a modular framework that enhances VLMs by leveraging a Localizer and a Descriptor. Experiments show that FineAgent consistently improves the performance of various open VLMs on FineBench. FineBench provides a rigorous testbed for future research into fine-grained human-centric video understanding, while FineAgent offers a practical approach to enhance such reasoning in current VLMs. Project page and code at https://joslefaure.github.io/assets/html/finebench.html.