Issues in Object Detection in Videos using Common Single-Image CNNs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing branch of computer vision is object detection. Object detection is used in many applications such as industrial process, medical imaging analysis, and autonomous vehicles. The ability to detect objects in videos is crucial. Object detection systems are trained on large image datasets. For applications such as autonomous vehicles, it is crucial that the object detection system can identify objects through multiple frames in video. There are many problems with applying these systems to video. Shadows or changes in brightness that can cause the system to incorrectly identify objects frame to frame and cause an unintended system response. There are many neural networks that have been used for object detection and if there was a way of connecting objects between frames then these problems could be eliminated. For these neural networks to get better at identifying objects in video, they need to be re-trained. A dataset must be created with images that represent consecutive video frames and have matching ground-truth layers. A method is proposed that can generate these datasets. The ground-truth layer contains only moving objects. To generate this layer, FlowNet2-Pytorch was used to create the flow mask using the novel Magnitude Method. As well, a segmentation mask will be generated using networks such as Mask R-CNN or Refinenet. These segmentation masks will contain all objects detected in a frame. By comparing this segmentation mask to the flow mask ground-truth layer, a loss function is generated. This loss function can be used to train a neural network to be better at making consistent predictions on video. The system was tested on multiple video samples and a loss was generated for each frame, proving the Magnitude Method's ability to be used to train object detection neural networks in future work.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".