MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910563408 · doi:10.1109/iros.2018.8593551

Real-Time Edge Template Tracking via Homography Estimation

2018· article· en· W2910563408 on OpenAlexaff
Xuebin Qin, Shida He, Zichen Zhang, Masood Dehghan, Jun Jin, Martin Jägersand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomographyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionPixelEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionFrame (networking)Feature (linguistics)Tracking (education)Frame rateTemplateFeature extractionEdge detectionCode (set theory)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Image processingMathematicsSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a novel real-time method for tracking planar edge templates. This method tracks an edge template by estimating its homography transformations with respect to the sampled edge pixels detected from the incoming frames. Particularly, we define a cost function based on a new feature map of the to-be-tracked edge template and optimize it by a Lucas-Kanade-like algorithm. The feature map is defined as the fourth root of the distance transform. Our method operates on just edges so that it is good at tracking those low textured targets, such as hollow targets (mug rim), thin targets (cable, ring) and non-Lambertian objects (disc). We validate and compare our method with four other methods on five newly collected real-world video sequences. The results achieves the lowest overall average error (1.58 pixels) and also outperforms others in terms of success rate. The per frame processing time of about 30 ms proves that our method is acceptable in realtime applications. The code and dataset are publicly available at: http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~xuebin/.

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 score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207