Choice of Application Layer Protocols for Next Generation Video Surveillance Using Internet of Video Things
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video surveillance has become ubiquitous due to the increasing security requirements in every sphere of life. The next generation video surveillance system (VSS) possesses great challenges in various applications, such as intelligent urban surveillance systems and smart cities. In these applications, we need to deal with the fast-growing number of surveillance nodes which introduce several constraints, e.g., high latency, high bandwidth, high energy consumption, and CPU and memory usage. To address these issues, the Internet of Video Things (IoVT), which is considered to be a part of the Internet of Things (IoT), can be a solution. The IoVT is composed of visual sensors (i.e., cameras) connected to the Internet. Unlike conventional systems, the VSS under an IoVT framework provides multiple layers (i.e., edge, fog, and cloud) of communication and decision making by capturing and analyzing rich contextual and behavioral information. Since an appropriate application layer protocol (ALP) can help in alleviating the challenges of future VSSs, the selection of ALPs is important for IoVT-based systems. Therefore, this paper presents a generic architecture of an IoVT-based VSS and a comparative analysis of several ALPs, such as MQTT, AMQP, HTTP, XMPP, CoAP, and DDS, with real-time experimentation. This analysis will assist the users to choose the appropriate ALPs in various surveillance applications and determine their suitability at different nodes of the IoVT framework.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".