MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1563021453 · doi:10.1109/crv.2015.53

An Online Unsupervised Feature Selection and its Application for Background Suppression

2015· article· en· W1563021453 on OpenAlexafffund
Thanh Minh Nguyen, Q. M. Jonathan Wu, Dibyendu Mukherjee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Feature selectionArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStreaming dataFeature (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)Feature extractionData miningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background suppression in video sequences has recently received great attention. While there exist many algorithms for background suppression, an important and challenging issue arising from these studies concerns that for which attributes of the data should be used for background modelling. It is interesting and difficult because there is no knowledge about the data to guide the search. Also, in real application for background suppression, the video length is unknown and the video frames are generated dynamically in a streaming fashion and arrive one at a time. Thus, it is impractical to wait until all data have been generated before feature learning begins. In this paper, we present an online unsupervised feature selection for background suppression. The advantage of our method is that it avoids any combinatorial search, is intuitively appealing, and allows us to prune the feature set. Moreover, our method, based on the self-adaptive model, has an ability to adapt and change through complex scenes. Experiments on real-world datasets are conducted. The performance of the proposed model is compared to that of other background modelling techniques, demonstrating the robustness and accuracy of our method.

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)0.000
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 score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207