MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413017586 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3596215

Improving Token-Based Object Detection With Video

2025· article· en· W4413017586 on OpenAlexaff
Abhineet Singh, Nilanjan Ray

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSecurity tokenComputer visionObject detectionVideo trackingObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceComputer networkPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper improves upon the Pix2Seq object detector [1] by extending it for videos. In the process, it introduces a new way to perform end-to-end video object detection that improves upon existing video detectors in two key ways. First, by representing objects as variable-length sequences of discrete tokens, we can succinctly represent widely varying numbers of video objects, with diverse shapes and locations, without having to inject any localization cues in the training process. This eliminates the need to sample the space of all possible boxes that constrains conventional detectors and thus solves the dual problems of loss sparsity during training and heuristics-based postprocessing during inference. Second, it conceptualizes and outputs the video objects as fully integrated and indivisible 3D boxes or tracklets instead of generating image-specific 2D boxes and linking these boxes together to construct the video object, as done in most conventional detectors. This allows it to scale effortlessly with available computational resources by simply increasing the length of the video subsequence that the network takes as input, even generalizing to multi-object tracking if the subsequence can span the entire video. We compare our video detector with the baseline Pix2Seq static detector on several datasets and demonstrate consistent improvement, although with strong signs of being bottlenecked by our limited computational resources. We also compare it with several video detectors on UA-DETRAC to show that it is competitive with the current state of the art even with the computational bottleneck. We make our code and models publicly available [66].

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207