Shadow Extraction and Elimination of Moving Vehicles for Tracking Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shadow extraction and elimination is essential for intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in vehicle tracking application. The shadow is the source of error for vehicle detection, which causes misclassification of vehicles and a high false alarm rate in the research of vehicle counting, vehicle detection, vehicle tracking, and classification. Most of the existing research is on shadow extraction of moving vehicles in high intensity and on standard datasets, but the process of extracting shadows from moving vehicles in low light of real scenes is difficult. The real scenes of vehicles dataset are generated by self on the Vadodara–Mumbai highway during periods of poor illumination for shadow extraction of moving vehicles to address the above problem. This paper offers a robust shadow extraction of moving vehicles and its elimination for vehicle tracking. The method is distributed into two phases: In the first phase, we extract foreground regions using a mixture of Gaussian model, and then in the second phase, with the help of the Gamma correction, intensity ratio, negative transformation, and a combination of Gaussian filters, we locate and remove the shadow region from the foreground areas. Compared to the outcomes proposed method with outcomes of an existing method, the suggested method achieves an average true negative rate of above 90%, a shadow detection rate SDR (η%), and a shadow discrimination rate SDR (ξ%) of 80%. Hence, the suggested method is more appropriate for moving shadow detection in real scenes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".