The Enrichment of Texture Information to Improve Optical Flow for Silhouette Image
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in computer vision with machine learning enabled detection, tracking, and behavior analysis of moving objects in video data. Optical flow is fundamental information for such computations. Therefore, accurate algorithm to correctly calculate it has been desired long time. In this study, it was focused on the problem that silhouette data has edge information but does not have texture information. Since popular algorithms for optical flow calculation do not work well on the problem, a method was proposed in this study. It artificially enriches the texture information of silhouette images by drawing shrunk edge on the inside of it with a different color. By the additional texture information, it was expected to give a clue of calculating better optical flows to popular optical flow calculation algorithms. Through the experiments using 10 videos of animals from the DAVIS 2016 dataset and TV-L1 algorithm for dense optical flow calculation, two values of errors (MEPE and AAE) were evaluated and it was revealed that the proposed method improved the performance of optical flow calculation for various videos. In addition, some relationships among the size of shrunk edge and the type and the speed of movement were suggested from the experimental results.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".