MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401054769 · doi:10.1142/s0129065724500618

Crowd Counting Using Meta-Test-Time Adaptation

2024· article· en· W4401054769 on OpenAlexaff
Chaoqun Ma, Ferrante Neri, Li Gu, Ziqiang Wang, Jian Wang, Anyong Qing, Yang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neural Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Computer scienceTest (biology)PsychologyBiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning algorithms are commonly used for quickly and efficiently counting people from a crowd. Test-time adaptation methods for crowd counting adjust model parameters and employ additional data augmentation to better adapt the model to the specific conditions encountered during testing. The majority of current studies concentrate on unsupervised domain adaptation. These approaches commonly perform hundreds of epochs of training iterations, requiring a sizable number of unannotated data of every new target domain apart from annotated data of the source domain. Unlike these methods, we propose a meta-test-time adaptive crowd counting approach called CrowdTTA, which integrates the concept of test-time adaptation into the meta-learning framework and makes it easier for the counting model to adapt to the unknown test distributions. To facilitate the reliable supervision signal at the pixel level, we introduce uncertainty by inserting the dropout layer into the counting model. The uncertainty is then used to generate valuable pseudo labels, serving as effective supervisory signals for adapting the model. In the context of meta-learning, one image can be regarded as one task for crowd counting. In each iteration, our approach is a dual-level optimization process. In the inner update, we employ a self-supervised consistency loss function to optimize the model so as to simulate the parameters update process that occurs during the test phase. In the outer update, we authentically update the parameters based on the image with ground truth, improving the model's performance and making the pseudo labels more accurate in the next iteration. At test time, the input image is used for adapting the model before testing the image. In comparison to various supervised learning and domain adaptation methods, our results via extensive experiments on diverse datasets showcase the general adaptive capability of our approach across datasets with varying crowd densities and scales.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Neural SystemsSame topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207