MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Foreground Segmentation in Video Sequences with a Dynamic Background

2018· article· en· W2913568723 on OpenAlexaff
Chu Tang, M. Omair Ahmad, Chunyan Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePixelComputer scienceSegmentationComputer visionForeground detectionImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Background subtractionFeature (linguistics)HueHSL and HSVGround truth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmentation of a moving foreground from video sequences, in the presence of a rapidly changing background, is a difficult problem. In this paper, a novel technique for an effective segmentation of the moving foreground from video sequences with a dynamic background is developed. The segmentation problem is treated as a problem of classifying the foreground and background pixels of a video frame using the color components of the pixels as multiple features of the images. The gray levels of the pixels and the hue and saturation level components in the HSV representation of the pixels of a frame are used to form a scalar-valued feature image. This feature image incorporating multiple features of the pixels is then used to devise a simple classification scheme in the framework of a support vector machine classifier. Unlike some other data classification approaches for foreground segmentation in which a priori knowledge of the shape and size of the moving foreground is essential, in the proposed method, training samples are obtained in an automatic manner. In order to assess the effectiveness of the proposed method, the new scheme is applied to a number of video sequences with a dynamic background and the results are compared with those obtained by using other existing methods. The subjective and objective results show the superiority of the proposed scheme in providing a segmented foreground binary mask that fits more closely with the corresponding ground truth mask than those obtained by the other methods do.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207