Group Behavior Pattern Recognition Algorithm Based on Spatio-Temporal Graph Convolutional Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid growth of population, more diverse crowd activities, and the rapid development of socialization process, group scenes are becoming more common, so the demand for modeling, analyzing, and understanding group behavior data in video is increasing. Compared with the previous work on video content analysis, factors such as the increasing number of people in the group video and the more complex scene make the analysis of group behavior in video face great challenges. Therefore, a group behavior pattern recognition algorithm based on spatio-temporal graph convolutional network is proposed in this paper, aiming at group density analysis and group behavior recognition in the video. A crowd detection and location method based on density map regression-guided classification was designed. Finally, a crowd behavior analysis method based on density grade division was designed to complete crowd density analysis and video group behavior detection. In addition, this paper also proposes to extract spatio-temporal features of crowd posture and density by using the double-flow spatio-temporal map network model, so as to effectively capture the differentiated movement information among different groups. Experimental results on public datasets show that the proposed method has high accuracy and can effectively predict group behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".