MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295374856 · doi:10.1109/icip.2015.7350978

Object tracking with adaptive motion modeling of particle filter and support vector machines

2015· article· en· W2295374856 on OpenAlexaff
Kumara Ratnayake, Maria A. Amer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionParticle filterSupport vector machineVideo trackingBitTorrent trackerKernel (algebra)Noise (video)Tracking (education)Filter (signal processing)Motion vectorMotion (physics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Eye trackingObject (grammar)MathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose an approach for tracking arbitrary objects based on dynamic motion model and support vector machines (SVMs). When the motion of target is large or abrupt, modeling target motion is crucial for robust object tracking, however, recent advanced trackers ignore this component. In our proposed approach, we represent target motion as a random stochastic process. We use Kernelized Harmonic Means to predict the next state of target motion using few prior state vectors, and then utilize Particle filter to further optimize the predicted state. Because SVMs possess good generalization ability, while being robust against noise, we adopt online ker-nelized SVMs to the tracking problem. Our approach learns the appearance of the target during tracking, and thus the proposed method is able to adapt online to target appearance changes and its surrounding background. In addition, we incorporate our motion model within the online kernelized SVMs framework as an energy map to assign higher energy for the support vectors that are closer to the location predicted by the proposed motion model. This allows reliably maintaining smooth trajectories without unnatural jittering artifacts, which is important for long-term object tracking in the presence of occlusion and noise. Taking the dynamic model into account also improves the computational efficiency as it reduces the dense search space required for localizing the target candidate. Experimentally, we demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art trackers on particularly challenging standard datasets.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207