MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284664380 · doi:10.1155/2022/9463559

A Three-Stage Anomaly Detection Framework for Traffic Videos

2022· article· en· W4284664380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junzhou Chen, Jiancheng Wang, Jiajun Pu, Ronghui Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangzhou Municipal Science and Technology ProjectShenzhen Fundamental Research ProgramGuangdong Science and Technology DepartmentNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAnomaly detectionAnomaly (physics)Computer scienceStage (stratigraphy)Real-time computingData miningGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As reported by the United Nations in 2021, road accidents cause 1.3 million deaths and 50 million injuries worldwide each year. Detecting traffic anomalies timely and taking immediate emergency response and rescue measures are essential to reduce casualties, economic losses, and traffic congestion. This paper proposed a three-stage method for video-based traffic anomaly detection. In the first stage, the ViVit network is employed as a feature extractor to capture the spatiotemporal features from the input video. In the second stage, the class and patch tokens are fed separately to the segment-level and video-level traffic anomaly detectors. In the third stage, we finished the construction of the entire composite traffic anomaly detection framework by fusing outputs of two traffic anomaly detectors above with different granularity. Experimental evaluation demonstrates that the proposed method outperforms the SOTA method with 2.07% AUC on the TAD testing overall set and 1.43% AUC on the TAD testing anomaly subset. This work provides a new reference for traffic anomaly detection research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207