MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985145931 · doi:10.5244/c.28.92

Multiple Object Tracking Using Local Motion Patterns

2014· article· en· W1985145931 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrsan Javan, Martin D. Levine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionObject (grammar)Markov chainMotion (physics)Video trackingTracking (education)Set (abstract data type)Data associationAssociation (psychology)Pattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an algorithm for multiple-object tracking without using object detection. We concentrate on creating long-term trajectories for unknown moving objects by using a model-free tracking algorithm. Each individual object is tracked by modeling the temporal relationship between sequentially occurring local motion patterns. The algorithm is based on shape and motion descriptors of moving objects, obtained at two hierarchical levels from an event understanding system. By considering both local and global motion patterns, two sets of initial tracks, called linklets, are obtained. Then, a set of sparse tracks, referred to in the literature as tracklets, is produced by grouping linklets demonstrating similar motion patterns. This produces two sets of independent tracklets, referred to as the lowand high-level tracklets. We adopt Markov Chain Monte Carlo Data Association (MCMCDA) to estimate a varying number of trajectories given a set of tracklets as input. To this end, we formulate tracklet association as a Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) problem to create a chain of tracklets. The final output of the data association algorithm is a partition of the set of tracklets such that those belong to individual objects have been grouped. This yields individual tracks for each object in a video.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designOther design
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