1670 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO.
5, MAY 2018
Image-Based Learning to Measure Traffic Density Using a
Deep Convolutional Neural Network
Jiyong Chung and Keemin Sohn
Abstract— Existing methodologies to count vehicles from a road image
have depended upon both hand-crafted feature engineering and rule-
based algorithms. These require many predefined thresholds to detect and
track vehicles. This paper provides a supervised learning methodology
that requires no such feature engineering. A deep convolutional neural
network was devised to count the number of vehicles on a road segment
based solely on video images. The present methodology does not regard
an individual vehicle as an object to be detected separately; rather,
it collectively counts the number of vehicles as a human would. The
test results show that the proposed methodology outperforms existing
schemes.
Index Terms— Deep convolutional neural network (CNN), machine
learning, traffic density, vehicle counting.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE traffic state is represented by three conventional parameters:
traffic volume, speed, and density. Whereas existing surveillance
systems such as loop detectors can easily measure the former two
parameters in the field, measuring the density is difficult, even
though the density is a decisive parameter by which the service
level is determined [1]. Recently, as computer vision technology
has advanced, many researchers have focused on detecting, tracking,
and classifying vehicles from video images, which has reaped very
promising results [2]–[6].
According to the taxonomy [7], existing computer vision tech-
nologies to detect and track moving objects can be broken down
into three branches: temporal difference, optical flow, and background
subtraction. The temporal difference method utilizes the differences
in two consecutive images to detect objects [8], [9]. This method
is very vulnerable where unexpected noise occurs. The optical-flow
method depends on obtaining an effective background image as a
baseline to detect objects [10]. Background subtraction is the most
prevalent method in the field [11], [12]. This method utilizes a
static background image that is prepared in advance, and then regards
the image as a baseline against which to compare other images that
include objects. Namely, silhouettes are drawn by black pixels with
an intensity that far surpasses that of the background.
The aforementioned description is only for drawing objects sepa-
rately from the background. Even though localizing pixels of objects
is successful, counting the number of objects is difficult. In order to
count objects, another segmentation process is necessary. There have
been many different methods used to recognize a blob, ranging from
drawing a bounding box based on the convex hull theory [11] to
Manuscript received September 16, 2016; revised February 23, 2017;
accepted July 22, 2017. Date of publication August 16, 2017; date of current
version May 2, 2018. This work was supported in part by the Chung-Ang
University Research Scholarship Grants in 2016 and in part by the National
Research Council of Science and Technology Grant by the Korea Govern-
ment (MSIP) under Grant CRC-15-05-ETRI. The Associate Editor for this
paper was K. Wang. (Corresponding author: Keemin Sohn.)
The authors are with the Laboratory of Big-data Applications in Public
Sectors, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, South Korea (e-mail:
jiyong369@hanmail.net; kmsohn@cau.ac.kr).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TITS.2017.2732029
1524-9050 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on February 06,2024 at 02:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
utilizing an edge detector [13]. Of course, machine learning tech-
nologies can be applied [11], [14]. Consequently, all existing
approaches, at least in part, are dependent on several arbitrarily
chosen rules and hand-crafted engineering to extract features.
The present study provides a simple approach to count vehicles on
a road segment based solely on video images with no hand-crafted
feature engineering. Quite a few studies have dealt collectively with
crowd counting using regression approaches [15]–[17]. However,
studies have rarely utilized a regression approach to collectively
count vehicles for the purpose of measuring the traffic density on
a road segment, even though this is much simpler than detecting,
tracking, and classifying vehicles on an individual basis. Of course,
once tracking an individual vehicle succeeds, the counting of vehicles
becomes trivial. However, such elaborate technology is redundant
where the measured traffic density is utilized simply to evaluate the
traffic state (e.g., the level of service) based on the highway capacity
manual (HCM) along with traffic volumes and speeds collected from
the existing spot detectors. In the study field of traffic-flow theory,
measuring traffic density has long been regarded as impossible.
Traditionally, the density had to be approximated by the occupancy
rate measured from spot detectors. Thus, the success in counting
vehicles simply by road images would be a significant breakthrough
in advancing existing traffic control and management.
Unlike previous studies wherein a conventional feed-forward
neural network was employed for crowd counting [15]–[17],
the present study adopted a deep convolutional neural network (CNN)
to estimate the number of vehicles from a video shoot. CNNs have
recently recorded great success when recognizing medical CT images
and human faces in a field of computer vision [18]–[20]. The present
study began with the expectation that a CNN must perform well in
counting vehicles, which is much simpler than recognizing medical
CT images or human faces.
The next section describes the entire framework of the present
vehicle-counting scheme and expounds on the principle of CNN.
How to collect data to train and test a CNN is described in the
third section. The counted results and comparisons with those from
the most prevalent methodologies, as well as with those from other
previous studies adopting various methodologies, are shown in the
fourth section. The fifth section draws conclusions and provides
possible extensions for the present study.
II. M ODELING F RAMEWORK
Preparing data to feed a CNN is the starting point of the present
study. The input features of a CNN are the RGB values of an image
at each pixel level. Whereas a CNN requires no preprocess to extract
input features, each input image should have a label, since a CNN
belongs to the category of supervised machine learning. In the present
study, vehicles within each input image were counted manually in
order to tag a label to the image. This labeling task is easier than
that performed by existing CNNs to detect objects, which requires
drawing a bounding box for each target object. Nonetheless, it may
take great effort to manually count vehicles in all input images.
CHUNG AND SOHN: IMAGE-BASED LEARNING TO MEASURE TRAFFIC DENSITY USING A DEEP CNN
Fig. 1. CNN model structure.
An efficient way to circumvent this difficulty will be suggested in
the fourth section.
Input images to train and test a CNN model were obtained from
video shoots taken at the approach of an actual intersection. Video
shoots for every single second were chosen to prepare the input
images. Most machine learning models are susceptible to be over-
fitted to training data. To avoid over-fitting, the model after training
should be validated against a new dataset that has never been used
in the training stage. Thus, it is important to divide available input
images into a training set and a test set. After dividing the input
data, the training set was augmented using various filters, so that a
CNN model could accommodate different situations that the original
training data did not account for.
Unfortunately, at the present time, there is no systematic way to
determine the best model structure for a CNN within a practical
computing time. A plausible model structure must be selected by trial-
and-error. While finding the best model structure, hyper-parameters
should be determined upon a third dataset other than the training and
test datasets. To establish a model structure, 5% of the training images
were selected. After training, the model performance was evaluated
and compared based on the test data that had been separated from
the training data. The background subtraction method was chosen as
a baseline to verify the utility of the present model. Finally, the com-
parison was conducted based on three performance indices: the
mean absolute error (MAE); the correlation coefficient with observed
numbers; and, the percent root mean squared error (%RMSE).
A CNN model within the entire modeling framework played a key
role in counting vehicles using a video image. However, it is difficult
to explain what mechanism makes it possible to count vehicles. The
most plausible way to guess the mechanics is to investigate high-level
features that the CNN extracts via filters. The features that the present
model extracted from the traffic images are shown and discussed in
the fourth section.
Fig. 1 shows the structure of the CNN model that was adopted
in the present study. The original high-resolution (90 × 600) input
images were downsized into a tractable dimension (30 × 200). Since
each input image was in color with RGB values, the dimensions of
the input image were 3 × 30 × 200. The first convolution layer was
created using 40 3 × 3 × 3 filters each of which slid through an input
image with a stride value of 1. Each cell value of the convolutional
hidden layer was computed by the linear combination of all weights
of a filter and the values of the portion of a target image that the filter
covered, and then was activated by a rectified linear unit (ReLU). The
ReLU outperformed the conventional sigmoid function, which is one
of the recent breakthroughs for deep learning [21]. At this stage,
each filter captured its own basic feature regardless of the feature
location within an image. In addition, using filters had the advantage
of reducing the number of weight parameters to be estimated, since
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on February 06,2024 at 02:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1671
each filter shared weight parameters wherever it resided within an
image. To avoid a layer-by-layer dimensionality reduction, prior to
convoluting the filters, target images were padded with null columns
and rows that consisted of 0s. After convolution, a new layer was
created by pooling each of the 5 × 5 cells of the convoluted layer
with average values, which had a smoothing effect on the images.
At the next stage, a second convolution layer was created by
allowing 80 2×2 × 40 filters to slide through the previous pooled
layer. The second-level convolution filters extracted more complex
features than those elicited from the first-level filters. After average
pooling again, the second convolutional hidden layer was flattened
to facilitate connection to a generic hidden layer. The connection
between the flattened layer and the next fully connected layer was
the same as that between two consecutive hidden layers of a feed-
forward neural network. The second fully-connected layer linearly fed
the final output layer of a single node that represented the observed
number of vehicles.
A CNN is known to recognize objects irrespective of scale,
location, or orientation. In particular, one of the main motivations of
the present study was to confirm whether a CNN can count partially
occluded vehicles. Also, real-world traffic images may contain either
a few instances of vehicles or a very large number of them. Whether
a CNN can count vehicles regardless of congestion level was another
issue that the present study tried to resolve. Answers to these
questions will be clearly presented in the fourth section.
The training method of a CNN is not different from that of a
feed-forward neural network. The basic theory is to derive weight
parameters that minimize the sum of squared errors between observed
and estimated output values, which is formulated as a loss function.
A back-propagation algorithm is used to derive the gradient of the
loss function with respect to each weight parameter. The algorithm,
however, has a fatal drawback. The derivative of errors is likely to be
lessened, as they are propagated from the top to the bottom layers,
which is a phenomenon that is referred to as the vanishing gradient
problem. Owing to adopting a ReLU for activating the node values
instead of the conventional sigmoid function, the back-propagation
algorithm successfully trained the proposed CNN model. A ReLU
activates node values greater than 0 into themselves and values less
than 0 into 0’s, which prevents the gradient vanishing problem.
Readers who are interested in the details of CNN can refer to [22].
Another advantage of a CNN is that the number of weight
parameters to be estimated can be reduced considerably compared
with adopting a conventional feed-forward neural network. A feed-
forward neural network has a large number of weight parameters
because each cell of an input image should connect to all hidden
nodes of the second hidden layer. A CNN, however, takes only filter
parameters into account, which makes it possible to recognize a large-
dimension image.
III. DATA C OLLECTION
An actual intersection in Seoul that has 5 legs was chosen as
the test bed (see Fig. 2). A daytime video stream (=6 hours
and 26 minutes) during a weekday was available. A 150 m-long
approach to the intersection was selected to collect input images.
Fig. 3 shows the configuration of the entire intersection and the
selected approach. The video stream was changed to .png images
by selecting snapshots for every second, which resulted in a total
of 23,164 images.
Among the saved images, 4,362 (= 20%) were randomly chosen to
test the trained model at a later time. The remaining 18,532 images
were left for training, and these were then augmented to consider
situations that the original images did not convey. The size of the
augmented training set increased to 111,192. For every original
training image, three more blurry images and two sharper images
1672 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 5, MAY 2018
Fig. 2. Configuration of testbed. The upper photo shows a video shoot for
the entire intersection, and the shaded area with green represents the selected
approach. The small photo inset on the upper right corner is aerial view of the
intersection. The bottom photo shows the approach after adjusting orientation
and viewpoint. The resolution of the final rectangular is 30×200 after resizing.
Fig. 3. Distribution of vehicle number.
were newly synthesized by using 5 different filters provided by the
Python image processing toolbox. There was no augmentation for the
test images. The procedure above was repeated three times to consider
sampling variances. Two different shares of test data (30% and 40%)
were also tested.
The distribution of the number of vehicles for the selected approach
is shown in Fig. 3. Two modes illustrate a typical pattern of daily
traffic demand in urban areas. The mean number of vehicles of
the selected approach was 53.2, and the minimum and maximum
numbers were 5 and 82, respectively.
IV. R ESULTS AND C OMPARISONS
A. Computing Environment
Prior to discussing the results and their comparisons with those
from the existing methods, the computing environment must be
clarified. To train the proposed CNN model, a graphical processing
unit (GPU) was needed to compute the matrices of weight parameters
in parallel. The computing time to train the proposed CNN using
only a central processing unit (CPU) with 12 cores was 1,160-fold
that of the GPU-based computing time. This shows that a deep CNN
cannot be learned without a GPU. The GPU utilized in the present
study was a NVDIA Quadro K5200. The GPU-based training took
only 42 seconds to run a single epoch. The maximum number of
epochs needed to reach convergence was set at 5,000, so that the
total computing time would be within a practical range (=about
two days).
Several software libraries were mobilized to train a deep CNN
model on a GPU. Keras1 is a library that provides high-level deep-
learning functions. Keras should be implemented with TensorFlow2
running at the back-end to ensure that it can utilize TensorFlow’s
1 https://github.com/fchollet/keras
2 http://tensorflow.org/
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on February 06,2024 at 02:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE I
T RAINING AND T ESTING R ESULTS OF CNN
low-level functions on a GPU. A Numpy3 library is also needed to
handle tensor arrays, so that Python, a main programming language
can handle tensor-type data with Keras functions. These open-source
libraries were downloaded from the Internet, and were used for
training and testing the proposed CNN model.
B. Results
The testing results are shown in Table I. As expected, there was
little difference between training and testing errors, although testing
results were slightly exacerbated, which was evidence that the model
was not overfitted. There was also little difference over 9 trials. None
of the MAEs exceeded 1.6. This implies that the average difference
between the estimated and observed counts was at most less than
1.6 vehicles, which was very promising when one considers that
the average number of vehicles within an image was 53.2. In what
follows, the performance of the proposed CNN will be discussed
based on the first trial for the 20% test examples, which was the
worst case.
The comparative concept of precision vs. recall is useful for
assessing the performance of a classification model. Although our
model is a regression model, the regression result can easily be
converted to the classification result. That is, if an estimated value
fell in a certain range (±1) around the ground truth, the classification
was regarded as a success. It was otherwise regarded as a failure. The
average precision and recall values were 60 and 57%, respectively.
These similar, but seemingly unsatisfactory, results were acceptable
for the purpose of the present study. It should be noted again that
the purpose of counting vehicles in the present study was not to
detect and identify an individual vehicle, but to collectively count
vehicles and thus to compute the traffic density for traffic control and
management at the HCM level. Fig. 4 shows the confusion matrix
by which the average precision-recall values were computed. The
stronger colors are the larger counts cells have. The observed number
of cars ranged widely from 5 to 82 along both vertical and horizontal
axes.
Generally, it is difficult to account for how a CNN can count the
number of vehicles exactly. However, filters were expected to abstract
the features of an image, objects were recognized by the features,
and the objects were then counted via the last fully connected layer.
Each filter’s role of extracting a specific feature could be visualized
by weight parameters.
Each 3×3 filter of the first convolutional hidden layer had
9 weights, each of which corresponded to a cell within the filter. For
example, if a filter cell weight is positive (red) or negative (blue),
the filter captures, to the extent of that weight value, a pixel of
3 http://www.numpy.org/
CHUNG AND SOHN: IMAGE-BASED LEARNING TO MEASURE TRAFFIC DENSITY USING A DEEP CNN
Fig. 4. Confusion matrix for the result of the present model.
Fig. 5. 40 Features abstracted by filters of the first convolution layer.
the input image that is covered by the cell. On the other hand,
if a filter cell value is 0 (white), the filter discards a pixel of
the input image that is covered by the filter cell. Fig. 5 depicts
3 sets of 40 different features abstracted by 3×3 filters of the first
convolution layer, in the RGB order. Unfortunately, the features at
this stage were not intuitively recognizable enough to be linked to the
known characteristics of a vehicle or any other object within input
images.
C. Comparisons With Other Methods
The testing result was compared with those from a prevalent
method that is used to count objects in the field of computer vision.
The background subtraction was chosen as the baseline reference.
Averaging all RGB images of the selected approach at the pixel level
led to a background image. Each image was then compared with
this background. That is, a pixel of the target image was assigned 1
if the difference between the maximum of the pixel’s RGB values
and the corresponding pixel value in the background exceeded a
threshold value (= 30); otherwise, it was assigned 0. Fig. 6 shows
the background and an example of an image after the background
subtraction.
The next step was to find the edges of the blobs of black pixels.
There are many hand-crafted technologies that can be used to box
blobs within an image. The present study adopted several naïve rules.
First, an object was recognized if its blob size was larger than a
predefined threshold (= 18). Second, larger blobs due to occlusion
were separated into two or more objects when the blob size exceeded
a multiple of the threshold. In addition, small blobs were merged
together if the distance between their center points was less than a
threshold value (= 4). The proposed model was superior to this naive
method, as shown in Table II.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on February 06,2024 at 02:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1673
TABLE II
C OMPARISON B ETWEEN BACKGROUND S UBTRACTION AND CNN
Fig. 6. Example of a real image (top), the background image (middle), and
silhouettes after background subtraction (bottom).
Fig. 7. Capability of CNN to count hidden vehicles. The proposed CNN
matched the exact number of vehicles within the upper image, whereas the
background subtracting did not count hidden vehicles behind trees and traffic
signs as shown in the upper image.
Fig. 7 shows that the proposed CNN exactly counted the occluded
vehicles behind trees and mounted traffic signs, whereas the back-
ground subtraction model was unable to detect the vehicles. It was
confirmed that the CNN model was able to count occluded vehicles
as humans did, as long as a large amount of correctly labeled data
could inform the model that there were vehicles hidden behind some
obstacles.
Although the proposed CNN outperformed the naïve background
subtraction model, stronger evidence was necessary to guarantee
its applicability. Unfortunately, learning-based methods to collec-
tively count vehicles on a road segment are rare in the literature.
Rather, several studies have counted pedestrians using regression-
type learning algorithms [23]–[27]. One of these studies has already
successfully adopted a CNN model to count pedestrians in a crowded
environment [27]. Even though the pedestrian counting methods
cannot be directly applied to counting vehicles, the performance
of the methods could be a good benchmark value to evaluate the
performance of the proposed CNN model.
Table III lists MAEs and %RMSEs excerpted from 5 different
pedestrian-counting algorithms for a common dataset, and shows that
1674 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 5, MAY 2018
TABLE III
C OMPARISON W ITH O THER S TUDIES
TABLE IV
P ERFORMANCE OF THE P RE -T RAINED M ODEL
a CNN-based model outperformed other regression-based learning
algorithms in counting pedestrians. The MAE value of the proposed
CNN model was superior to that of the best model that employed
a CNN to count pedestrians. Furthermore, since the present dataset
ranged more widely, the %RMSE of the proposed model was much
less than that of the previous pedestrian-counting model.
D. Reducing the Effort to Tag Labels
The present study was totally dependent upon supervised learning.
This means that the proposed model requires a large amount of
labeled data. In the present study, 23,164 images were labeled
manually, which required an exhaustive amount of time and effort.
Actually, it is impractical to tag labels manually to all training and
testing images whenever vehicles on a new road approach must be
counted.
An innovative way to tackle the problem was suggested, and it is
described in this sub-section. After pre-training a CNN model using
images tagged with an approximately counted number of vehicles,
the pre-trained model was fine-tuned based on only a small number of
exactly labeled images. A naïve background subtraction method could
be the best fit for providing the approximated number of vehicles.
Table IV shows the performance of the doubly trained model.
The performance of the model, after pre-training with labels from
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on February 06,2024 at 02:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the naïve background subtraction method, did not differ significantly
from that of the original model that was trained based on fully labeled
images. Only 3,706 images were sufficient to fine-tune the model,
which saved a considerable amount of time and effort in acquiring a
robust model.
The dual training scheme considerably reduced the computing time
for training. Table IV shows that implementing the new approach
took only 13 seconds for an epoch, whereas the computing time for
training with fully labeled images required 42 seconds per epoch.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
The present study was a demonstration of a novel approach
to counting vehicles on a road segment in order to accurately
quantify traffic density at an aggregate level for traffic control and
management. The approach succeeded in counting vehicles with an
acceptable accuracy that was comparable to the results using existing
methodologies. It was concluded that the proposed CNN model is
applicable to measuring the traffic density at the HCM level.
However, further studies will be necessary to tackle several diffi-
culties regarding the proposed approach. Even though the proposed
model required no hand-crafted feature engineering, how to determine
the hyper-parameters of a CNN was not broached. A CNN model
contains several hyper-parameters such as the number of hidden
layers, the number of hidden nodes within each hidden layer, the filter
size for each convolutional hidden layer, and the number of filters
used for each hidden layer, etc. A systematic way to determine the
optimal value for the hyper-parameters will govern the performance
of counting vehicles.
In addition, vehicle details were ignored when counting vehicles in
the present CNN model. Namely, the CNN model counted vehicles
regardless of size, make, and type. Of course, the purpose of counting
vehicles was confined to evaluating traffic flows at the aggregate
level in the present study. However, in the future, advanced counting
technology should recognize the details of each vehicle. In particular,
distinguishing between moving and stopped vehicles is very impor-
tant for traffic control and management. A CNN model based on
consecutive images is now under construction to count vehicles while
discerning whether each vehicle is moving or not. If this succeeds,
the next version of the present study will measure the space mean
speed as well as the traffic density. The space mean speed is another
important parameter in traffic engineering, and it cannot be measured
directly with the existing surveillance systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] P. Ryus, M. Vandehey, L. Elefteriadou, R. G. Dowling, and
B. K. Ostrom, Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, DC, USA:
Transportation Research Board, 2010.
[2] S. Messelodi, C. M. Modena, and M. Zanin, “A computer vision system
for the detection and classification of vehicles at urban road intersec-
tions,” Pattern Anal. Appl., vol. 8, nos. 1–2, pp. 17–31, Sep. 2005.
[3] N. Buch, J. Orwell, and S. A. Velastin, “Urban road user detection and
classification using 3-D wireframe models,” IET Comput. Vis. J., vol. 4,
no. 2, pp. 105–116, Jun. 2010.
[4] H. Veeraraghavan, O. Masoud, and N. Papanikolopoulos, “Vision-based
monitoring of intersections,” in Proc. IEEE 5th Int. Conf. Intell. Transp.
Syst., Singapore, Sep. 2002, pp. 7–12.
[5] K. Park, D. Lee, and Y. Park, “Video-based detection of street-parking
violation,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Image Process., Comput. Vis., Pattern
Recognit., vol. 1. Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2007, pp. 152–156.
[6] S. Atev, H. Arumugam, O. Masoud, R. Janardan, and
N. P. Papanikolopoulos, “A vision-based approach to collision prediction
at traffic intersections,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 6, no. 4,
pp. 416–423, Dec. 2005.
[7] C. Ozkurt and F. Camci, “Automatic traffic density estimation and vehi-
cle classification for traffic surveillance systems using neural networks,”
Math. Comput. Appl., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 187–196, Dec. 2009.
CHUNG AND SOHN: IMAGE-BASED LEARNING TO MEASURE TRAFFIC DENSITY USING A DEEP CNN
[8] M. T. López, A. Fernández-Caballero, J. Mira, A. E. Delgado, and
M. A. Fernández, “Algorithmic lateral inhibition method in dynamic
and selective visual attention task: Application to moving objects detec-
tion and labelling,” Expert. Syst. Appl., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 570–594,
Oct. 2006.
[9] M. T. López, A. Fernández-Caballero, M. A. Fernández, J. Mira,
and A. E. Delgado, “Visual surveillance by dynamic visual attention
method,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 2194–2211, Nov. 2006.
[10] X. Ji, Z. Wei, and Y. Feng, “Effective vehicle detection technique for
traffic surveillance systems,” J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent., vol. 17,
no. 3, pp. 647–658, Jun. 2006.
[11] J. Zhou, D. Gao, and D. Zhang, “Moving vehicle detection for automatic
traffic monitoring,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 51–59,
Jan. 2007.
[12] X. Niu, “A semi-automatic framework for highway extraction and
vehicle detection based on a geometric deformable model,” ISPRS
J. Photogram. Remote Sens., vol. 61, nos. 3–4, pp. 170–186,
Dec. 2006.
[13] Z. Zhu and G. Xu, “VISATRAM: A real-time vision system for
automatic traffic monitoring,” Image Vis. Comput., vol. 18, no. 10,
pp. 781–794, Jul. 2000.
[14] J.-W. Hsieh, S.-H. Yu, Y.-S. Chen, and W.-F. Hu, “Automatic traffic
surveillance system for vehicle tracking and classification,” IEEE Trans.
Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 175–187, Jun. 2006.
[15] S.-Y. Cho, T. W. S. Chow, and C.-T. Leung, “A neural-based crowd
estimation by hybrid global learning algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man,
Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 535–541, Aug. 1999.
[16] D. Kong, D. Gray, and H. Tao, “A viewpoint invariant approach for
crowd counting,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Pattern Recognit., Santa Cruz, CA,
USA, 2006, pp. 1187–1190.
[17] A. N. Marana, S. A. Velastin, L. F. Costa, and R. A. Lotufo, “Estimation
of crowd density using image processing,” in Proc. IEE Colloq. Image
Process. Secur. Appl., Mar. 1997, pp. 11/1–11/8.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Obuda. Downloaded on February 06,2024 at 02:35:39 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1675
[18] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “ImageNet classification
with deep convolutional neural networks,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf.
Process. Syst. (NIPS), vol. 25. Dec. 2012, pp. 1097–1105.
[19] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. (Sep. 2014). “Very deep convolu-
tional networks for large-scale image recognition.” [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1556
[20] C. Szegedy et al., “Going deeper with convolutions,” in Proc. IEEE Conf.
Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), Boston, MA, USA, Jun. 2015,
pp. 1–9.
[21] V. Nair and G. E. Hinton, “Rectified linear units improve restricted
boltzmann machines,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML), Haifa,
Israel, Jun. 2010, pp. 807–814.
[22] CS231n Convolutional Neural Networks for Visual Recognition.
Assessed on Aug. 5, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://cs231n.github.io/
convolutional-networks/
[23] S. An, W. Liu, and S. Venkatesh, “Face recognition using kernel ridge
regression,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR),
Minneapolis, MN, USA, Jun. 2007, pp. 1–7.
[24] K. Chen, C. C. Loy, S. Gong, and T. Xiang, “Feature mining for localised
crowd counting,” in Proc. Brit. Mach. Vis. Conf., Wales, U.K., 2012,
vol. 1. no. 2, pp. 3–14.
[25] A. B. Chan, Z.-S. J. Liang, and N. Vasconcelos, “Privacy preserving
crowd monitoring: Counting people without people models or tracking,”
in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), Anchorage,
AK, USA, Jun. 2008, pp. 1–7.
[26] K. Chen, S. Gong, T. Xiang, and C. C. Loy, “Cumulative attribute
space for age and crowd density estimation,” in Proc. IEEE Conf.
Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), Portland, OR, USA, Jul. 2013,
pp. 2467–2474.
[27] C. Zhang, H. Li, X. Wang, and X. Yang, “Cross-scene crowd counting
via deep convolutional neural networks,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Com-
put. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), Boston, MA, USA, Jun. 2015,
pp. 833–841.