When Does Exercise-Specific Joint Selection Help? An Audit of Evaluation and Control Design
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Exercise-specific joint selection can improve skeleton-based correctness classification, but what does that gain establish? We audit 1,057 repetitions from ten REHAB24-6 subjects, separating evaluation aggregation, subset structure, and temporal representation. The manual-subset kNN gain changes from 0.055 for pooled out-of-fold AUROC to 0.020 for equal-weight within-person AUROC; both paired intervals include zero. Among 1,000 dimension-matched random maps, 14 match or exceed the manual pooled result, versus 145 when bilateral structure and trunk inclusion are also matched. RBF-SVM retains a positive within-person gain, whereas logistic regression and a random-convolution comparator have negative point gains under that estimand. Sequence-order and paired-seed controls further qualify the interpretation. This exploratory audit shows why joint-selection claims require explicit estimands and structurally appropriate controls; it does not establish a new algorithm or clinical benefit.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 5 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.
Builds on
4 of 5 references.
References · 4
- 2022FineDiving: A Fine-grained Dataset for Procedure-aware Action Quality Assessmentcited by 106
- 2024Multi-Stage Contrastive Regression for Action Quality Assessmentcited by 8
- 2025Rehabilitation Exercise Quality Assessment and Feedback Generation Using Large Language Models with Prompt Engineeringcited by 3
- 2025A Standardized Benchmark for Skeleton-Based Rehabilitation Assessment Using Deep Learningcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.