MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548462403 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2016.7726711

Analyzing surveillance videos using automatically generated processing sequences with knowledge-augmented genetic algorithms

2016· article· en· W2548462403 on OpenAlexaff
Jagath Samarabandu, Kamal Ranaweera

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSharpeningImage processingGenetic algorithmNoise (video)Domain (mathematical analysis)AlgorithmEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionDomain knowledgeArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Object (grammar)Data miningMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracting meaningful information from large number of video streams require designing specific algorithms to detect each type of object such as faces, people, vehicles, bags etc. The development of such specific algorithms requires a large amount of time from an expert in image analysis. Optimization based techniques have been increasingly used to automatically develop such algorithms, but they do not utilize any domain knowledge. Consequently, these automated approaches explore a large solution space and were only able to use a small number of primitive tools as building blocks in the generated algorithms. We proposes a novel method which integrates abstract knowledge about image processing tools into a genetic algorithm by exploiting the fact that there are classes of image processing algorithms that implement specific categories of algorithms such as noise reduction, sharpening, edge detection, binarization, classification etc. Using such knowledge, we were able to constrain the search performed by the genetic algorithm within a rich space of possibly successful processing sequences. Moreover, the use of abstract knowledge decouples the proposed method from implementation details of specific processing tools so that the system can be easily extended by incorporating additional tools. Experimental evaluations compare the our approach with a traditional genetic algorithm based implementation which does not utilize highlevel knowledge. A case study shows that the proposed method could converge to the optimum solution six times faster than the traditional method.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207