A system for airport surveillance: detection of people running, abandoned objects, and pointing gestures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proposed system is focusing on the detection of three events in airport videos: a person running, a person putting down an object and a person pointing with his/her hand. The system was part of the NIST-TRECVid 2010 campaign, the training dataset consists in 100 hours of video from the Gatwick airport from five different cameras. For the detection of a person running, a non-parametric approach was adopted where statistics about tracked object velocities were accumulated over a long period of time using a Gaussian kernel. Outliers were then detected with the help of a kind of tstudent test taking into account the local statistics and the number of observations. For the detection of "object put" events, we follow a dual background segmentation approach where the difference in response between a short term and a long term background model (Mixture of Gaussians) triggers alerts. False alerts are excluded based on a simple modeling of the camera geometry in order to reject objects that are too large or too small given their positions in the image. The detection of pointing gesture events is based on the grouping of significant spatio-temporal corners (Harris) in a 3x3x3 cell called compound features as proposed recently by Andrew Gilbert et al. [10]. A hierarchical codebook is then derived from the training set based on a data mining algorithm looking for frequent items (called transactions). The algorithm was modified in order to deal with the large number of potential transactions (several millions) during the training step.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".