MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376638861 · doi:10.18280/isi.280226

Camshift Algorithm with GOA-Neural Network for Drone Object Tracking

2023· article· en· W4376638861 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lokesh Sai Kiran Vatsavai, Krishna Satya Varma Mantena

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial neural networkObject (grammar)Tracking (education)Video trackingAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting objects in scenes filmed by drones is a trendy new activity.Since drones are constantly changing altitude, the magnitude of the objects they encounter wildly fluctuates, making it difficult to optimise networks.However, because of the complexity of the environment, such tracking approaches cannot be functional for real-world issues.For instance, the tracking system has a hard time locating people of interest when there are several of them in close proximity to one another.Another major factor in the system's inability to detect individuals is the prevalence of backgrounds of a similar hue.In order to do this, this study suggests using a Camshift method in tandem with an optimal-based neural network.When compared to methods that rely on conventional tracking algorithms, this one is both more cost-effective and flexible in different settings.This model makes adjustments to the Yolo neural network, the Camshift algorithm, and other previously merged components.The issues with occlusion, lighting, scale, and noise in the Camshift algorithm are addressed.We conducted our tests using two publicly available datasets: VisDrone and AU-AIR.Experiments using the VisDrone and AU-AIR datasets demonstrate the suggested method's ability to dramatically enhance classification accuracy.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207