MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546765065 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2016.7726647

Visual tracking via bilateral 2DPCA and robust coding

2016· article· en· W2546765065 on OpenAlexaff
B. K. Shreyamsha Kumar, M.N.S. Swamy, M. Omair Ahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidualComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCoding (social sciences)Neural codingSparse approximationPattern recognition (psychology)Regularization (linguistics)Computer visionAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of sparse representation, in face recognition and visual tracking, has attracted much attention in computer vision in spite of its computational complexity. However, these sparse representation-based methods often assume that the coding residual follows either Gaussian or Laplacian distribution, which may not be precise enough to describe the coding residuals in real tracking situations. With the aim of dealing such coding residuals, in this paper, a novel generative tracker is proposed in a Bayesian inference framework by exploiting both the bilateral 2D principle component analysis (B2DPCA) and robust coding. As the coding residual is two-dimensional, the weighted residual minimization is extended and is introduced into B2DPCA reconstruction without considering the much complex ℓ <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sub> -regularization. Further, it is to proposed use the weights obtained during the process of residual minimization for generating an occlusion matrix, which is used to enhance the tracker updates. The proposed method is evaluated on the challenging image sequences available in the literature, and it is demonstrated that the proposed method performs favorably when compared with the several state-of-the-art methods.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207