Evaluates video-based human action recognition, temporal captioning, and visual question answering in microgravity environments. It probes a model's ability to generalize to orientation-invariant motion, floating objects, and lack of ground contact where terrestrial models typically fail. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MicroG-4M, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports mAP@0.5.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill microg-4m-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Microg 4m Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-microg-4m-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: microg-4m-eval
description: Evaluates video-based human action recognition, temporal captioning, and visual question answering in microgravity environments. It probes a model's ability to generalize to orientation-invariant motion, floating objects, and lack of ground contact where terrestrial models typically fail. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MicroG-4M, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports mAP@0.5.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2506.02845
bibtex_key: wen2025microg4m
confidence: high
---
# microg-4m-eval
> Go Beyond Earth: Understanding Human Actions and Scenes in Microgravity Environments — Wen et al. (2025) (arXiv:2506.02845, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates video-based human action recognition, temporal captioning, and visual question answering in microgravity environments. It probes a model's ability to generalize to orientation-invariant motion, floating objects, and lack of ground contact where terrestrial models typically fail.
## Datasets
- **MicroG-4M** — total 4759; splits: train (3331), val (475), test (953); repo https://github.com/LEI-QI-233/HAR-in-Space
## Metrics
- `mAP@0.5` **(primary)** — range: [0, 100]
- Mean Average Precision at Intersection-over-Union threshold 0.5, macro-averaged over all action classes. Measures detection accuracy per category.
- `F1-score` — range: [0, 100]
- Macro-averaged F1 score computed per class and then averaged across all action categories.
- `CIDEr` — range: [0, 100]
- Standard lexical metric for caption/QA evaluation, rescaled to a 0–100 range for consistency.
- `S-BERT` — range: [0, 100]
- Cosine similarity between Sentence-BERT embeddings of predicted and reference texts, rescaled to 0–100.
- `S-VQA` — range: [0, 100]
- Semantic equivalence metric for VQA answers, computed as cosine similarity between Sentence-BERT embeddings of predicted and reference answers.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Video clips (typically sampled within a 3-second window, frame counts vary by model) for HAR and captioning; video clips paired with natural language questions for VQA.
**Output**: For HAR: predicted action class labels with bounding boxes/timestamps. For captioning: descriptive text captions. For VQA: natural language answers.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, golds, task):
if task == 'HAR':
class_aps = []
for cls in classes:
pred_boxes = [p for p in predictions if p.label == cls]
gold_boxes = [g for g in golds if g.label == cls]
class_aps.append(calculate_ap(pred_boxes, gold_boxes, iou_thresh=0.5))
return sum(class_aps) / len(class_aps) * 100
elif task in ['captioning', 'VQA']:
scores = {}
scores['CIDEr'] = cider_score(predictions, golds) * 100
scores['S-BERT'] = cosine_similarity(sbert(predictions), sbert(golds)) * 100
if task == 'VQA':
scores['S-VQA'] = cosine_similarity(sbert(predictions), sbert(golds)) * 100
return scores
```
## Common pitfalls
- Models pretrained on Earth datasets (e.g., Kinetics, AVA) degrade significantly due to gravity-dependent priors (orientation, support/contact) rather than architectural limitations.
- Lexical metrics (BLEU-4, CIDEr) drop sharply due to domain-specific vocabulary and paraphrasing, while semantic metrics (S-BERT, S-VQA) remain higher; relying solely on lexical overlap misrepresents model capability.
- Increasing input frame density within a fixed time window does not consistently improve performance; semantic salience extraction is more critical than temporal redundancy in microgravity.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Our evaluation metrics include mAP@0.5, F1 score, recall, and AUROC, all calculated using the macro method. Among these, mAP@0.5 is the primary metric for measuring average detection accuracy per category and thus comprehensively evaluating the model’s action recognition performance in a microgravity environment.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{wen2025microg4m,
title={Go Beyond Earth: Understanding Human Actions and Scenes in Microgravity Environments},
author={Wen et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2506.02845}
}
```
- arXiv: 2506.02845
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!