MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386802598 · doi:10.23977/jaip.2023.060508

Abnormal Event Detection and Localization Based on Crowd Analysis in Video Surveillance

2023· article· en· W4386802598 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xu Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFrame (networking)Event (particle physics)Energy (signal processing)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceBlock (permutation group theory)Point (geometry)Key frameTracking (education)Feature (linguistics)Identification (biology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Index (typography)Key (lock)Computer securityMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development of economy and urban construction, abnormal events detection has arouse spread attention in need of public security. When an abnormal event occurs, the pedestrians in crowd escape or run instinctively which will lead to sharp change in the collectiveness feature and kinetic energy of crowd. This paper proposes a method based on the Collectiveness Energy Index (CEI) which combines the two features mentioned above to detect the abnormal events because it is not unreliable to utilize either of the two features singly. Besides, this paper also presents a means to locate abnormal behaviours in the anomalous scenes. Firstly, we obtain spatial coordinate of particles existed on individuals in each frame using generalized Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi key point tracker (gKLT). Then, the Collectiveness Energy Index (CEI) of each frame is calculated and compared with an adaptive threshold for abnormal events identification. In order to locate abnormal behaviours, this paper splits each input frame of video sequences into blocks without overlapping and then calculates the velocity and individual collectiveness of each block for classifying it as anomalous or not. Experiments conducted on UMN dataset and UCSD dataset verify the effectiveness and superiority of our detection and localization method.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence PracticeSame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207