Abnormal Event Detection and Localization via Adversarial Event Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present adversarial event prediction (AEP), a novel approach to detecting abnormal events through an event prediction setting. Given normal event samples, AEP derives the prediction model, which can discover the correlation between the present and future of events in the training step. In obtaining the prediction model, we propose adversarial learning for the past and future of events. The proposed adversarial learning enforces AEP to learn the representation for predicting future events and restricts the representation learning for the past of events. By exploiting the proposed adversarial learning, AEP can produce the discriminative model to detect an anomaly of events without complementary information, such as optical flow and explicit abnormal event samples in the training step. We demonstrate the efficiency of AEP for detecting anomalies of events using the UCSD-Ped, CUHK Avenue, Subway, and UCF-Crime data sets. Experiments include the performance analysis depending on hyperparameter settings and the comparison with existing state-of-the-art methods. The experimental results show that the proposed adversarial learning can assist in deriving a better model for normal events on AEP, and AEP trained by the proposed adversarial learning can surpass the existing 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".