Deep Attention Models for Human Tracking Using RGBD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual tracking performance has long been limited by the lack of better appearance models. These models fail either where they tend to change rapidly, like in motion-based tracking, or where accurate information of the object may not be available, like in color camouflage (where background and foreground colors are similar). This paper proposes a robust, adaptive appearance model which works accurately in situations of color camouflage, even in the presence of complex natural objects. The proposed model includes depth as an additional feature in a hierarchical modular neural framework for online object tracking. The model adapts to the confusing appearance by identifying the stable property of depth between the target and the surrounding object(s). The depth complements the existing RGB features in scenarios when RGB features fail to adapt, hence becoming unstable over a long duration of time. The parameters of the model are learned efficiently in the Deep network, which consists of three modules: (1) The spatial attention layer, which discards the majority of the background by selecting a region containing the object of interest; (2) the appearance attention layer, which extracts appearance and spatial information about the tracked object; and (3) the state estimation layer, which enables the framework to predict future object appearance and location. Three different models were trained and tested to analyze the effect of depth along with RGB information. Also, a model is proposed to utilize only depth as a standalone input for tracking purposes. The proposed models were also evaluated in real-time using KinectV2 and showed very promising results. The results of our proposed network structures and their comparison with the state-of-the-art RGB tracking model demonstrate that adding depth significantly improves the accuracy of tracking in a more challenging environment (i.e., cluttered and camouflaged environments). Furthermore, the results of depth-based models showed that depth data can provide enough information for accurate tracking, even without RGB information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".