MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901512101 · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2881723

Visual Tracking Based on Correlation Filter and Robust Coding in Bilateral 2DPCA Subspace

2018· article· en· W2901512101 on OpenAlexafffund
B. K. Shreyamsha Kumar, M.N.S. Swamy, M. Omair Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDiscriminative modelArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSubspace topologyPattern recognition (psychology)Affine transformationComputer visionRobustness (evolution)Eye trackingCoding (social sciences)Generative modelMathematicsGenerative grammar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of correlation filters in visual tracking has attracted much attention in computer vision due to their high efficiency and performance. However, they are not equipped with a mechanism to cope with challenging situations like scale variations, out-of-view, and camera motion. With the aim of dealing with such situations, a collaborative scheme of tracking based on the discriminative and generative models is proposed. Instead of finding all the affine motion parameters of the target by the combined likelihood of these models, the correlation filters, based on discriminative model, are used to find the position of the target, whereas 2D robust coding in a bilateral 2DPCA subspace, based on generative model, is used to find the other affine motion parameters of the target. Further, a 2D robust coding distance is proposed to differentiate the candidate samples from the subspace and used to compute the observation likelihood in the generative model. In addition, it is proposed to generate a robust occlusion map from the weights obtained during the residual minimization and a novel update mechanism of the appearance model for both the correlation filters and bilateral 2DPCA subspace is proposed. The proposed method is evaluated on the challenging image sequences available in the OTB-50, VOT2016, and UAV20L benchmark datasets, and its performance is compared with that of the state-of-the-art tracking algorithms. In contrast to OTB-50 and VOT2016, the dataset UAV20L contains long duration sequences with additional challenges introduced by both the camera motion and the view points in three dimensions. Quantitative and qualitative performance evaluations on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed tracking algorithm outperforms the 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207