MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073591796 · doi:10.1109/crv.2013.32

A Dynamic Bayesian Framework for Motion Segmentation

2013· article· en· W2073591796 on OpenAlexafffund
Thanh Minh Nguyen, Q. M. Jonathan Wu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceBayesian probabilityDynamic Bayesian networkImage segmentationMixture modelFlexibility (engineering)Expectation–maximization algorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionNoise (video)Image (mathematics)MathematicsMaximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic textures are sequences of images of moving scenes in time that are common in natural scenes and play an important role in video content analysis. This paper presents a new dynamic Bayesian framework for segmentation of dynamic textures. First, we formulate the problem in the Bayesian framework using mixture model theory. The major advantage of our approach is that it provides a natural way to cluster data based on the components of the mixture that generated it. Second, in order to model the distribution of observed data, only grayscale information is taken into consideration of the existing mixture models. In order to overcome this problem, a new distribution is presented in this paper. The advantage of the proposed distribution is that it has the flexibility to fit different kinds of observed data and is more reliable for changes of noise and contrast levels. Finally, expectation maximization (EM) algorithm is adopted to maximize the lower bound on the data log-likelihood and to optimize the parameters. The proposed model is successfully compared to the state of the arts dynamic texture segmentation approaches. Numerous experiments are presented where our model is tested on various simulated and natural real-world dynamic textures.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207