Multi-aspect badminton video understanding base deep learning methods


Abstract

This article presents a multi-task video analysis framework tailored for badminton matches, aiming to achieve a comprehensive understanding of semantic elements such as shuttlecock detection, player segmentation, stroke event recognition, and keypoint-based technical evaluation. Unlike existing approaches that primarily target single-task recognition in sports like table tennis or soccer, our system is designed for the unique challenges of badminton, characterized by high-speed movement, frequent occlusions, and rapid pose changes through a modular neural architecture with temporal modeling capabilities. The core architecture is adapted and extended from TTNet, integrating temporal modules and task-specific branches to enable joint training and optimization across multiple tasks. To support system training and evaluation, we construct and annotate a structured badminton dataset, VideoBadminton, which includes multi-level labels such as shuttle trajectories, player bounding boxes, stroke event types, and skeletal keypoints. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in terms of detection accuracy, temporal consistency, and multi-task coordination. Furthermore, we develop a visualization module to support coaching and performance evaluation. This article establishes a scalable technical paradigm for intelligent sports video analysis and provides a methodological foundation for badminton-oriented AI training and education systems.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].