Advances in Convolution Neural Networks Based Crowd Counting and Density Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatically estimating the number of people in unconstrained scenes is a crucial yet challenging task in different real-world applications, including video surveillance, public safety, urban planning, and traffic monitoring. In addition, methods developed to estimate the number of people can be adapted and applied to related tasks in various fields, such as plant counting, vehicle counting, and cell microscopy. Many challenges and problems face crowd counting, including cluttered scenes, extreme occlusions, scale variation, and changes in camera perspective. Therefore, in the past few years, tremendous research efforts have been devoted to crowd counting, and numerous excellent techniques have been proposed. The significant progress in crowd counting methods in recent years is mostly attributed to advances in deep convolution neural networks (CNNs) as well as to public crowd counting datasets. In this work, we review the papers that have been published in the last decade and provide a comprehensive survey of the recent CNNs based crowd counting techniques. We briefly review detection-based, regression-based, and traditional density estimation based approaches. Then, we delve into detail regarding the deep learning based density estimation approaches and recently published datasets. In addition, we discuss the potential applications of crowd counting and in particular its applications using unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) images.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".