Papers › Benchmarking the Robustness of Temporal Action Detection Models Against Temporal Corruptions

Benchmarking the Robustness of Temporal Action Detection Models Against Temporal Corruptions

29 Mar 2024CVPR 2024 1arXiv:2403.20254archive 2025-07-28

Runhao Zeng, Xiaoyong Chen, Jiaming Liang, Huisi Wu, Guangzhong Cao, Yong Guo

Temporal action detection (TAD) aims to locate action positions and recognize action categories in long-term untrimmed videos. Although many methods have achieved promising results, their robustness has not been thoroughly studied. In practice, we observe that temporal information in videos can be occasionally corrupted, such as missing or blurred frames. Interestingly, existing methods often incur a significant performance drop even if only one frame is affected. To formally evaluate the robustness, we establish two temporal corruption robustness benchmarks, namely THUMOS14-C and ActivityNet-v1.3-C. In this paper, we extensively analyze the robustness of seven leading TAD methods and obtain some interesting findings: 1) Existing methods are particularly vulnerable to temporal corruptions, and end-to-end methods are often more susceptible than those with a pre-trained feature extractor; 2) Vulnerability mainly comes from localization error rather than classification error; 3) When corruptions occur in the middle of an action instance, TAD models tend to yield the largest performance drop. Besides building a benchmark, we further develop a simple but effective robust training method to defend against temporal corruptions, through the FrameDrop augmentation and Temporal-Robust Consistency loss. Remarkably, our approach not only improves robustness but also yields promising improvements on clean data. We believe that this study will serve as a benchmark for future research in robust video analysis. Source code and models are available at https://github.com/Alvin-Zeng/temporal-robustness-benchmark.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

16 samples harvested; 7 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 9 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 16 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from Alvin-Zeng/temporal-robustness-benchmark. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections