MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964213565 · doi:10.1109/iros.2017.8206291

Real-time salient closed boundary tracking via line segments perceptual grouping

2017· article· en· W2964213565 on OpenAlexaff
Xuebin Qin, Shida He, Camilo Perez Quintero, Abhineet Singh, Masood Dehghan, Martin Jägersand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Line segmentSalientEye trackingTracking (education)Maxima and minimaBoundary (topology)MathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel real-time method for tracking salient closed boundaries from video image sequences. This method operates on a set of straight line segments that are produced by line detection. The tracking scheme is coherently integrated into a perceptual grouping framework in which the visual tracking problem is tackled by identifying a subset of these line segments and connecting them sequentially to form a closed boundary with the largest saliency and a certain similarity to the previous one. Specifically, we define a new tracking criterion which combines a grouping cost and an area similarity constraint. The proposed criterion makes the resulting boundary tracking more robust to local minima. To achieve real-time tracking performance, we use Delaunay Triangulation to build a graph model with the detected line segments and then reduce the tracking problem to finding the optimal cycle in this graph. This is solved by our newly proposed closed boundary candidates searching algorithm called “Bidirectional Shortest Path (BDSP)”. The efficiency and robustness of the proposed method are tested on real video sequences as well as during a robot arm pouring experiment.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207