MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Occlusion Handling in Object Detection

2012· book-chapter· en· W2483543396 on OpenAlexaff
Farjana Z. Eishita, Ashfaqur Rahman, Salahuddin Azad, Akhlaqur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Tracking (education)OcclusionFeature (linguistics)Texture (cosmology)Computer scienceVideo trackingMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Object tracking is a process that follows an object through consecutive frames of images to determine the object’s movement relative other objects of those frames. In other words, tracking is the problem of estimating the trajectory of an object in the image plane as it moves around a scene. This chapter presents research that deals with the problem of tracking objects when they are occluded. An object can be partially or fully occluded. Depending on the tracking domain, a tracker can deal with partial and full object occlusions using features such as colour and texture. But sometimes it fails to detect the objects after occlusion. The shape feature of an individual object can provide additional information while combined with colour and texture features. It has been observed that with the same colour and texture if two object’s shape information is taken then these two objects can be detected after the occlusion has occurred. From this observation, a new and a very simple algorithm is presented in this chapter, which is able to track objects after occlusion even if the colour and textures are the same. Some experimental results are shown along with several case studies to compare the effectiveness of the shape features against colour and texture features.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207