MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318464426 · doi:10.3390/s23031504

Person Re-Identification with RGB–D and RGB–IR Sensors: A Comprehensive Survey

2023· review· en· W4318464426 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Kamal Uddin, Amran Bhuiyan, Fateha Khanam Bappee, Md. Matiqul Islam, Mahmudul Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRGB color modelComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEmbeddingIdentification (biology)Computer visionDeep learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning about appearance embedding is of great importance for a variety of different computer-vision applications, which has prompted a surge in person re-identification (Re-ID) papers. The aim of these papers has been to identify an individual over a set of non-overlapping cameras. Despite recent advances in RGB-RGB Re-ID approaches with deep-learning architectures, the approach fails to consistently work well when there are low resolutions in dark conditions. The introduction of different sensors (i.e., RGB-D and infrared (IR)) enables the capture of appearances even in dark conditions. Recently, a lot of research has been dedicated to addressing the issue of finding appearance embedding in dark conditions using different advanced camera sensors. In this paper, we give a comprehensive overview of existing Re-ID approaches that utilize the additional information from different sensor-based methods to address the constraints faced by RGB camera-based person Re-ID systems. Although there are a number of survey papers that consider either the RGB-RGB or Visible-IR scenarios, there are none that consider both RGB-D and RGB-IR. In this paper, we present a detailed taxonomy of the existing approaches along with the existing RGB-D and RGB-IR person Re-ID datasets. Then, we summarize the performance of state-of-the-art methods on several representative RGB-D and RGB-IR datasets. Finally, future directions and current issues are considered for improving the different sensor-based person Re-ID systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.007

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207