MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946562067 · doi:10.1049/iet-its.2018.5409

Vision‐based traffic accident detection using sparse spatio‐temporal features and weighted extreme learning machine

2019· article· en· W2946562067 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanlong Yu, Miaoxing Xu, Jason Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Intelligent Transport Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceExtreme learning machineTraffic accidentComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningEngineeringArtificial neural networkTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vision‐based traffic accident detection is one of the challenging tasks in intelligent transportation systems due to the multi‐modalities of traffic accidents. The first challenging issue is about how to learn robust and discriminative spatio‐temporal feature representations. Since few training samples of traffic accidents can be collected, sparse coding techniques can be used for small data case. However, most sparse coding algorithms which use norm regularisation may not achieve enough sparsity. The second challenging issue is about the sample imbalance between traffic accidents and normal traffic such that detector would like to favour normal traffic. This study proposes a traffic accident detection method, including a self‐tuning iterative hard thresholding (ST‐IHT) algorithm for learning sparse spatio‐temporal features and a weighted extreme learning machine (W‐ELM) for detection. The ST‐IHT algorithm can improve the sparsity of encoded features by solving an norm regularisation. The W‐ELM can put more focus on traffic accident samples. Meanwhile, a two‐point search strategy is proposed to adaptively find a candidate value of Lipschitz coefficients to improve the tuning precision. Experimental results in our collected dataset have shown that this proposed traffic accident detection algorithm outperforms other state‐of‐the‐art methods in terms of the feature's sparsity and detection performance.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Intelligent Transport SystemsSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207