MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965110031 · doi:10.1109/crv.2019.00030

Traffic Risk Assessment: A Two-Stream Approach Using Dynamic-Attention

2019· article· en· W2965110031 on OpenAlexafffund
Gary-Patrick Corcoran, James J. Clark

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceFocus (optics)Convolutional neural networkCategorical variableArtificial intelligenceRecurrent neural networkFrame (networking)Object detectionImplementationObject (grammar)Frame rateSequence (biology)Computer visionArtificial neural networkMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem being addressed in this research is performing traffic risk assessment on visual scenes captured via outward-facing dashcam videos. To perform risk assessment, a two-stream dynamic-attention recurrent convolutional neural architecture is used to provide a categorical risk level for each frame in a given input video sequence. The two-stream approach consists of a spatial stream, which analyzes individual video frames and computes high-level appearance features and a temporal stream, which analyzes optical flow between adjacent frames and computes high-level motion features. Both spatial and temporal streams are then fed into their respective recurrent neural networks (RNNs) that explicitly models the sequence of features in time. A dynamic-attention mechanism which allows the network to learn to focus on relevant objects in the visual scene is added. These objects are detected by a state-of-the-art object detector and correspond to vehicles, pedestrians, traffic signs, etc. The dynamic-attention mechanism not only improves classification performance, but also provides a method to visualize what the network "sees" when predicting a risk level. This mechanism allows the network to implicitly learn to focus on hazardous objects in the visual scene. Additionally, this research introduces an offline and online model that differ slightly in their implementations. The offline model analyzes the complete video sequence and scores a classification accuracy of 84.89%. The online model deals with an infinite stream of data and produces results in near real-time (7 frames-per-second); however, it suffers from a slight decrease in classification accuracy (79.90%).

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 score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207