MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017180934 · doi:10.3390/sym12040647

Person Re-Identification by Discriminative Local Features of Overlapping Stripes

2020· article· en· W3017180934 on OpenAlexaff
Fawad Fawad, Muhammad Jamil Khan, MuhibUr Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueSymmetry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminative modelArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConcatenation (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Disjoint setsRobustness (evolution)HistogramHistogram of oriented gradientsMatching (statistics)GaussianComputer visionMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human visual system can recognize a person based on his physical appearance, even if extreme spatio-temporal variations exist. However, the surveillance system deployed so far fails to re-identify the individual when it travels through the non-overlapping camera’s field-of-view. Person re-identification (Re-ID) is the task of associating individuals across disjoint camera views. In this paper, we propose a robust feature extraction model named Discriminative Local Features of Overlapping Stripes (DLFOS) that can associate corresponding actual individuals in the disjoint visual surveillance system. The proposed DLFOS model accumulates the discriminative features from the local patch of each overlapping strip of the pedestrian appearance. The concatenation of histogram of oriented gradients, Gaussian of color, and the magnitude operator of CJLBP bring robustness in the final feature vector. The experimental results show that our proposed feature extraction model achieves rank@1 matching rate of 47.18% on VIPeR, 64.4% on CAVIAR4REID, and 62.68% on Market1501, outperforming the recently reported models from the literature and validating the advantage of the proposed model.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymmetrySame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207