MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519895415 · doi:10.1109/hpcsim.2016.7568386

A unified threshold updating strategy for multivariate Gaussian mixture based moving object detection

2016· article· en· W2519895415 on OpenAlexaff
Thangarajah Akilan, Q. M. Jonathan Wu, Jie Huo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackground subtractionPixelArtificial intelligenceMixture modelComputer scienceComputer visionDistortion (music)Object detectionSimilarity (geometry)GaussianSet (abstract data type)Object (grammar)Pattern recognition (psychology)Foreground detectionGaussian processImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moving object detection is vitally used in video surveillance applications. Traditional Gaussian mixture model (GMM) based background subtraction (BGS) methods are usually performs well when background is stationary. However, they require parameter tuning to deal with dynamic backgrounds, whose background pixel values change over time. Particularly, the threshold which determines the pixels associated with moving objects from the resultant of BGS. To tackle this problem there is no ultimate solution. Considering that, this paper intents to present a novel idea to update the threshold of GMM based BGS with respect to color distortion, similarity and illumination measures in pixel level. Extensive experiments were carried out to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in comparison to some of the long-familiar GMM based BGS methods in literature. However, note that this paper is not attempted to provide a real-time technique, but rather to investigate the potential utilization of the aforementioned measures to set a threshold automatically to detect moving objects in video sequences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207