MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506047331 · doi:10.1109/crv.2015.18

RKLT: 8 DOF Real-Time Robust Video Tracking Combing Coarse Ransac Features and Accurate Fast Template Registration

2015· article· en· W1506047331 on OpenAlexaff
Xi Zhang, Abhineet Singh, Martin Jägersand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRANSACComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBitTorrent trackerRobustness (evolution)Video trackingOutlierActive appearance modelMotion estimationBundle adjustmentEye trackingObject (grammar)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of a tracker can be measured by two often conflicting criteria - robustness and accuracy. Recently researchers have focused on improving robustness, using adaptive appearance models. However updating the appearance model can cause drift and lower the accuracy of motion (state) estimation. These trackers generally compute 2 degree of freedom(DOF) image translation of the object, and are suited for applications such as surveillance. In contrast, we are interested in tracking objects using high DOF motion models - especially 8DOF homograph models that allow tracking of precise state information (projective 8D or calibrated 3Dworld translations and 3D rotations of the tracked object). Such precise state is required for visual motion control of e.g. robot arms, hands and UAV. To this end, we propose a novel tracking algorithm that combines KLT [8], RANSAC [21] and Inverse Compositional tracker [7]. First we sample a large patch into a set of small patches and track each one using frame-to-frame 2D KLT trackers. An 8 DOF homograph describing the large patch motion is then estimated from the current locations of these KLT trackers using RANSAC while also discarding lost trackers as outliers. Finally, using the RANSAC 8DOF motion estimate as the initial guess, we perform a few iterations of an IC registration tracker. This refines the patch motion to sub-pixel accuracy and avoids drift by registering to the original template. We perform three sets of experiments - one is the standard synthetic Lena convergence benchmark and two use real image sequences from recent datasets - to show that our tracker compares favourably with the state-of-the-art.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207