MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974698510 · doi:10.1109/smc.2014.6973953

Dual Gaussian mixture model with pixel history for background suppression

2014· article· en· W1974698510 on OpenAlexaff
Dibyendu Mukherjee, Ashirbani Saha, Q. M. Jonathan Wu, Wei Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixture modelComputer sciencePixelArtificial intelligenceDual (grammatical number)Object detectionComputer visionGaussianPattern recognition (psychology)Assimilation (phonology)Object (grammar)Gaussian process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background suppression has found several application areas in computer vision. Among others, abandoned object detection and moving object detection under dynamic backgrounds are two major application areas. Gaussian mixture model (GMM) is one of the most popular methods and has been applied in both of these application areas. However, the aforementioned areas present contradicting challenges for GMM. Abandoned objects need the GMM to slowly get adapted to prevent accidental assimilation of the foreground, while dynamic backgrounds need quick assimilation to prevent noisy detection. A novel dual GMM based on pixel history is proposed to provide practical solutions to both of these contradictory challenges. The method uses separate GMMs to represent foreground and background modes. A foreground mode is transferred to the GMM representing the background based on its history of occurrence. Thus, a quick assimilation is offered to dynamic backgrounds while abandoned objects face a very slow assimilation. In each case, old background is preserved. Extensive experiments are done to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method and to compare it with a number of well known methods in literature.

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)0.001
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207