Statistical background subtraction using spatial cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most statistical background subtraction techniques are based on the analysis of temporal color/intensity distribution. However, learning statistics on a series of time frames can be problematic, especially when no frame absent of moving objects is available or when the available memory is not sufficient to store the series of frames needed for learning. In this letter, we propose a spatial variation to the traditional temporal framework. The proposed framework allows statistical motion detection with methods trained on one background frame instead of a series of frames as is usually the case. Our framework includes two spatial background subtraction approaches suitable for different applications. The first approach is meant for scenes having a nonstatic background due to noise, camera jitter or animation in the scene (e.g.,waving trees, fluttering leaves). This approach models each pixel with two PDFs: one unimodal PDF and one multimodal PDF, both trained on one background frame. In this way, the method can handle backgrounds with static and nonstatic areas. The second spatial approach is designed to use as little processing time and memory as possible. Based on the assumption that neighboring pixels often share similar temporal distribution, this second approach models the background with one global mixture of Gaussians.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".