2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2013
DOI: 10.1109/cvpr.2013.336
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic Scene Classification: Learning Motion Descriptors with Slow Features Analysis

Abstract: In this paper, we address the challenging problem of categorizing video sequences composed of dynamic natural scenes. Contrarily to previous methods that rely on handcrafted descriptors, we propose here to represent videos using unsupervised learning of motion features. Our method encompasses three main contributions: 1) Based on the Slow Feature Analysis principle, we introduce a learned local motion descriptor which represents the principal and more stable motion components of training videos. 2) We integrat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
46
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
46
0
Order By: Relevance
“…From the confusion matrix, we observe that except for a scene like lightning, where there is a large variation in brightness level, the classification accuracy is high for all the scenes. Table 2 reports the comparison of our model with the state-of-the-art results: HOG [20,6], GIST [17,6], Chaos [24], SOE [6], and Slow Feature Analysis(SFA) [25]. Though there are variations in accuracies in individual categories, our model's average final accuracy appears similar to [25] model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…From the confusion matrix, we observe that except for a scene like lightning, where there is a large variation in brightness level, the classification accuracy is high for all the scenes. Table 2 reports the comparison of our model with the state-of-the-art results: HOG [20,6], GIST [17,6], Chaos [24], SOE [6], and Slow Feature Analysis(SFA) [25]. Though there are variations in accuracies in individual categories, our model's average final accuracy appears similar to [25] model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Table 2 reports the comparison of our model with the state-of-the-art results: HOG [20,6], GIST [17,6], Chaos [24], SOE [6], and Slow Feature Analysis(SFA) [25]. Though there are variations in accuracies in individual categories, our model's average final accuracy appears similar to [25] model. Experiment is repeated ten times randomly choosing the training set for computing the average accuracy for each category.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 3 more Smart Citations