MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093251642 · doi:10.1109/tbiom.2020.3031470

View-Invariant Gait Recognition With Attentive Recurrent Learning of Partial Representations

2020· preprint· en· W3093251642 on OpenAlexafffund
Alireza Sepas‐Moghaddam, Ali Etemad

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biometrics Behavior and Identity Science · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceGaitRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningComputer visionPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gait recognition refers to the identification of individuals based on features acquired from their body movement during walking. Despite the recent advances in gait recognition with deep learning, variations in data acquisition and appearance, namely camera angles, subject pose, occlusions, and clothing, are challenging factors that need to be considered for achieving accurate gait recognition systems. In this article, we propose a network that first learns to extract gait convolutional energy maps (GCEM) from frame-level convolutional features. It then adopts a bidirectional recurrent neural network to learn from split bins of the GCEM, thus exploiting the relations between learned partial spatiotemporal representations. We then use an attention mechanism to selectively focus on important recurrently learned partial representations as identity information in different scenarios may lie in different GCEM bins. Our proposed model has been extensively tested on two large-scale CASIA-B and OU-MVLP gait datasets using four different test protocols and has been compared to a number of state-of-the-art and baseline solutions. Additionally, a comprehensive experiment has been performed to study the robustness of our model in the presence of six different synthesized occlusions. The experimental results show the superiority of our proposed method, outperforming the state-of-the-art, especially in scenarios where different clothing and carrying conditions are encountered. The results also revealed that our model is more robust against different occlusions as compared to the state-of-the-art methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biometrics Behavior and Identity ScienceSame topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207