MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294399075 · doi:10.1109/tip.2012.2199326

Behavior Subtraction

2012· article· en· W2294399075 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre‐Marc Jodoin, Venkatesh Saligrama, Janusz Konrad

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackground subtractionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionSpurious relationshipAnomaly detectionObject detectionPattern recognition (psychology)PixelMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background subtraction has been a driving engine for many computer vision and video analytics tasks. Although its many variants exist, they all share the underlying assumption that photometric scene properties are either static or exhibit temporal stationarity. While this works in many applications, the model fails when one is interested in discovering changes in scene dynamics instead of changes in scene's photometric properties; the detection of unusual pedestrian or motor traffic patterns are but two examples. We propose a new model and computational framework that assume the dynamics of a scene, not its photometry, to be stationary, i.e., a dynamic background serves as the reference for the dynamics of an observed scene. Central to our approach is the concept of an event, which we define as short-term scene dynamics captured over a time window at a specific spatial location in the camera field of view. Unlike in our earlier work, we compute events by time-aggregating vector object descriptors that can combine multiple features, such as object size, direction of movement, speed, etc. We characterize events probabilistically, but use low-memory, low-complexity surrogates in a practical implementation. Using these surrogates amounts to behavior subtraction, a new algorithm for effective and efficient temporal anomaly detection and localization. Behavior subtraction is resilient to spurious background motion, such as due to camera jitter, and is content-blind, i.e., it works equally well on humans, cars, animals, and other objects in both uncluttered and highly cluttered scenes. Clearly, treating video as a collection of events rather than colored pixels opens new possibilities for video analytics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.040

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207