MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399368852 · doi:10.21428/d82e957c.3da7f032

POPCat: Propagation of Particles for Complex Annotation Tasks

2024· preprint· en· W4399368852 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Srebrnjak Yang, Dheeraj Khanna, John Zelek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePipeline (software)SegmentationAnnotationMargin (machine learning)Set (abstract data type)Video trackingComputer visionPrecision and recallPattern recognition (psychology)Object (grammar)GeneralizationTracking (education)Object detectionFrame (networking)Machine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novel dataset creation for all multi-object tracking, crowd-counting, and industrial-based videos is arduous and time-consuming when faced with a unique class that densely populates a video sequence. We propose a time efficient method called POPCat that exploits the multi-target and temporal features of video data to produce a semi-supervised pipeline for segmentation or box-based video annotation. The method retains the accuracy level associated with human level annotation while generating a large volume of semi-supervised annotations for greater generalization. The method capitalizes on temporal features through the use of a particle tracker to expand the domain of human-provided target points. This is done through the use of a particle tracker to reassociate the initial points to a set of images that follow the labeled frame. A YOLO model is then trained with this generated data, and then rapidly infers on the target video. Evaluations are conducted on GMOT-40, AnimalTrack, and Visdrone-2019 benchmarks. These multi-target video tracking/detection sets contain multiple similar-looking targets, camera movements, and other features that would commonly be seen in “wild” situations. We specifically choose these difficult datasets to demonstrate the efficacy of the pipeline and for comparison purposes. The method applied on GMOT-40, AnimalTrack, and Visdrone shows a margin of improvement on recall/mAP50/mAP over the best results by a value of 24.5%/9.6%/4.8%, -/43.1%/27.8%, and 7.5%/9.4%/7.5% where metrics were collected.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207