## 5 Experiments
### Impact of Coordinate Change Rate Adjustment  
The pose refinement method proposed in this paper identifies abnormal changes, not typical joint trajectories, in the frame-by-frame coordinate change rate and considers them as outliers for removal. To understand the impact of this approach on performance improvement, we compared the coordinate change rate graphs before and after refinement. Figure 9 displays the change rate graphs of each joint before and after refinement. The red graph represents the change rate before refinement, and the blue graph shows the change rate after refinement. Each graph starts with joint 0 at the top and ends with joint 15 at the bottom. We compared the change rates of Pose 3, which showed an increase in the MPJPE score, and Pose 9, which demonstrated the most significant reduction in the MPJPE score. The proposed results reveal that Pose 3 still had many spikes in the change rate after refinement, indicating missed  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Model** & **Pose 3** & **Pose 6** & **Pose 9** & **Pose 12** & **Mean** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{MPJPE} \\ \hline BlazePose & 135.98 & 112.93 & 200.44 & 157.04 & 151.59 \\ BlazePose + Our w/o (a), (c), (d) & 136.97 & 112.59 & 182.79 & 150.61 & 145.74 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{mAP} \\ \hline BlazePose & 2.96 & 11.29 & 15.74 & 0.37 & 7.59 \\ BlazePose + Our w/o (a), (c), (d) & 3.51 & 10.92 & 16.11 & 0.18 & 7.68 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Experimental result of 3D pose refinement module. This experiment compares the results of applying our pose refinement method to the baseline model, BlazePose. The evaluation score is based on MPJPE, which measures the average Euclidean distance between predicted and ground truth 3D joint positions in human pose estimation tasks. (a), (b), and (c) are the algorithms in Figure 4. The “w/o” represents “without”.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Mean of MPJPE** \\ \hline w/o Interpolation & 151.59 \\ Linear & 145.74 \\ Cubic & 149.31 \\ Nearest & 146.61 \\ Previous & 146.53 \\ Next & 146.97 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: The comparison result of the interpolation method in 3D pose. The method contains the experiments “w/o interpolation” (without interpolation) and the interpolation methods used in the comparison experiments. The evaluation was conducted with the MPJPE score, and the average score was used to measure the overall interpolation performance.  
detection in regions of abrupt change. In contrast, for Pose 9, the post-refinement change rate showed significant stabilization. Consistently, Pose 9 achieved more substantial pose accuracy improvement than Pose 3. Through these results, we confirmed that stabilizing the change rate can contribute to enhancing the accuracy of coordinates.  
Figure 9: Graph of coordinate changes for each frame interval. The red graph represents the change rate of data estimated by the pose estimation model, while the blue graph shows the change rate after refinement. The \(x\)-axis is the frame, and the \(y\)-axis is the amount of change in coordinates. The top graph is at joint 0, and the bottom graph is at the last joint. The MPJPE score measures the average Euclidean distance between the predicted and ground truth 3D joint positions in human pose estimation tasks, and the mAP score represents the average precision across different recall levels.