MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991085797 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5777

Exploiting Spatial Invariance for Scalable Unsupervised Object Tracking

2020· preprint· en· W2991085797 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Crawford, Joëlle Pineau

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSamsung
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)ArchitectureComputer visionInvariant (physics)Video trackingTracking (education)Process (computing)ComputationTrack (disk drive)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to detect and track objects in the visual world is a crucial skill for any intelligent agent, as it is a necessary precursor to any object-level reasoning process. Moreover, it is important that agents learn to track objects without supervision (i.e. without access to annotated training videos) since this will allow agents to begin operating in new environments with minimal human assistance. The task of learning to discover and track objects in videos, which we call unsupervised object tracking, has grown in prominence in recent years; however, most architectures that address it still struggle to deal with large scenes containing many objects. In the current work, we propose an architecture that scales well to the large-scene, many-object setting by employing spatially invariant computations (convolutions and spatial attention) and representations (a spatially local object specification scheme). In a series of experiments, we demonstrate a number of attractive features of our architecture; most notably, that it outperforms competing methods at tracking objects in cluttered scenes with many objects, and that it can generalize well to videos that are larger and/or contain more objects than videos encountered during training.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.135 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207