2D Part-Based Visual Tracking of Hydraulic Excavators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual tracking has been widely applied in construction industry and attracted signifi-cant interests recently. Lots of research studies have adopted visual tracking techniques on the surveillance of construction workforce, project productivity and construction safety. Until now, visual tracking algorithms have gained promising performance when tracking un-articulated equipment in construction sites. However, state-of-art tracking algorithms have unguaranteed performance in tracking articulated equipment, such as backhoes and excavators. The stretching buckets and booms are the main obstacles of successfully tracking articulated equipment. In order to fill this knowledge gap, the part-based tracking algorithms are introduced in this paper for tracking articulated equipment in construction sites. The part-based tracking is able to track different parts of target equipment while using multiple tracking algorithms at the same sequence. Some existing tracking methods have been chosen according to their outstanding performance in the computer vision community. Then, the part-based algorithms were created on the basis of selected visual tracking methods and tested by real construction sequences. In this way, the tracking performance was evaluated from effectiveness and robustness aspects. Throughout the quantification analysis, the tracking performance of articulated equipment was much more improved by using the part-based tracking algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".