arXiv:1709.05311v1 [cs.CV] 15 Sep 2017

Video Synopsis Generation Using
Spatio-Temporal Groups
A. Ahmed and S. Kar

D. P. Dogra

R. Patnaik and S. Lee

NIT Durgapur, India
Email: arif.1984.in@ieee.org,
samarjit.kar@maths.nitdgp.ac.in

IIT Bhubaneswar, India
Email: dpdogra@iitbbs.ac.in

IKST Bangalore, India
Email: {renuka.patnaik,seungcheol.lee}@ikst.res.in

H. Choi and I. Kim
KIST, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Email:{hschoi, drjay}@kist.re.kr

Abstract—Millions of surveillance cameras operate at 24x7
generating huge amount of visual data for processing. However,
retrieval of important activities from such a large data can
be time consuming. Thus, researchers are working on finding
solutions to present hours of visual data in a compressed,
but meaningful way. Video synopsis is one of the ways to
represent activities using relatively shorter duration clips. So
far, two main approaches have been used by researchers to
address this problem, namely synopsis by tracking moving
objects and synopsis by clustering moving objects. Synopses
outputs, mainly depend on tracking, segmenting, and shifting
of moving objects temporally as well as spatially. In many
situations, tracking fails, thus produces multiple trajectories
of the same object. Due to this, the object may appear and
disappear multiple times within the same synopsis output,
which is misleading. This also leads to discontinuity and often
can be confusing to the viewer of the synopsis. In this paper, we
present a new approach for generating compressed video synopsis by grouping tracklets of moving objects. Grouping helps
to generate a synopsis where chronologically related objects
appear together with meaningful spatio-temporal relation. Our
proposed method produces continuous, but a less confusing
synopses when tested on publicly available dataset videos as
well as in-house dataset videos.
Index Terms—Trajectory grouping, Non-chronological synopsis, Video synopsis, Spatio-temporal grouping

I. I NTRODUCTION
Surveillance videos recorded at 24x7 are normally not of
much use unless summarized meaningfully. There exist a
few approaches to produce video synopses. For example,
the fast-forward approach proposed in [1] is well-known to
generate video synopsis. Unfortunately, the method misses
events such as fast moving objects while skipping video
frames. To mitigate this problem, a few alternatives have
been proposed in [2], [3], where key frames are chosen
conditionally to generate synopsis. However, frame-based
approaches tend to produce longer duration synopsis by
combining activity video clips sequentially [4], [5]. To
reduce the length of the synopses, a number of approaches
have been proposed that extract activity area from the raw
video and montage these activities together [6], [7]. In
the synopsis video, several activities coming from different
times are stitched in continuous frames. In this case, it often
produces unpleasant synopsis due to blending seams coming
from different image patches.

To address such problems, researchers have proposed
object-based non-chronological video synopsis approach [4],
[8], [9]. In object-based approaches, moving objects are
tracked using multi-object tracker, segmented at real-time,
and then shifted to different time in the synopsis according to user’s requirements. Although object-based methods
can reduce duration of synopsis, it may cause collisions
between objects that appear within same spatial domain and
sometimes produces confusing synopsis by showing several
activities simultaneously. To reduce such collisions, a few
improvements have already been proposed. For example, Nie
et al. [5] and Kang et al. [10] have proposed methods by
shifting the moving objects in spatial and temporal domain.
Although these methods reduce collisions, both temporal
and location information of objects are violated. Pritch et
al. [4] have proposed a method by energy minimization with
only temporal shifting of objects. Results produced by their
method produces confusing synopsis as several activities are
shown simultaneously. Xuelong et al. [11] have proposed
methodology to minimize object collision with minimum
time shifting by scaling down the object size. Pritch et al. [9]
have proposed method by clustering moving objects and
showing similar activity together to deal with the confusing
synopsis. Their method deals with trajectory clustering and
displays similar activities together.
Video synopsis methods enable fast and efficient browsing
of surveillance videos, however create a summary that are
often confusing to humans for visual inspection. In this
paper, we have proposed a new method that is primarily built
upon the concept proposed in [4], [8], [9], [12] and [11].
However, our proposed method enables displaying a group
of activities simultaneously which originate from different
time periods. Also, it creates meaningful summaries by
minimizing sudden appearance and disappearance of objects,
and also reduces confusions by grouping different activities.
A. Motivation and Contributions
Short duration tube or activity based synopsis generation
described in [4], [8], [9], [12] and [11] often produces
poor synopsis. It can produce synopsis with shorter lengths
by showing simultaneously multiple activity segment of
same object, which is confusing. Therefore, the outputs are

not always meaningful to correlate with ground truths by
human video analysts. The algorithm suffers from the below
drawbacks:
• Sometimes objects may appear and disappear in the
synopsis video as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
• Activity segments or tubes of the same object may appear non-chronologically resulting discontinuous synopsis as depicted in Fig. 2.
• Activity segments or tubes of the same object may
appear at the same time resulting confusing synopsis
as depicted in Fig. 3.
This paper proposes a method to generate synopsis of a
time bounded video by overcoming aforementioned drawbacks. In contrast to these methods proposed in [4], [8],
[9], [11], [12], our proposed method groups the moving
objects to generate the synopsis. Grouping is done with
respect to relative spatio-temporal distance and chronological appearance of the objects. Results reveal the superiority
of our method over existing approaches. Also, our method
produces synopsis that originally reflect continuous activities
of moving objects. For example, An object appeared in a
scene at 10:00:00 AM and exit the scene at 10:01:15 AM.
Proposed method preserve the chronological appearance of
the same object in different location, and produce continuous
synopsis of the same object.

Fig. 2: Example of a synopsis segment (Frame 92 to Frame
99) of a moving object that appears at different times in
the KIST video. It has been observed that, two small tubes
or activities (green and orange) appear non-chronologically.
Tube represented by the top row actually appears after the
tube represented by the bottom row in the original video. It
also creates sudden appearance and disappearance of objects,
therefore does not reflect the ground truth.

Fig. 3: Example of a set of synopsis frames taken from
the KIST video and the results synopsis reported in- [4].
It has been observed that, same object may appear multiple
times at the same time frame. Therefore, it creates confusing
synopsis.

Fig. 1: Examples of two moving objects appear at different
times in the in-house KIST dataset video and how they
appear in the synopsis video. It has been observed that a
small tube (activity segment) appears in a very short period,
For example, a sample small tube appeared and disappeared
in between Frame 72 to Frame 73 (red border). It creates
sudden appearance and disappearance of moving objects in
the synopsis video.
Rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next
section, we present the proposed methodology in detail.
Section III, we present the results obtained using publicly available datasets as well as using the videos of inhouse KIST dataset. Conclusion and future directions of the
present work are discussed in Section IV.
II. P ROPOSED S YNOPSIS G ENERATION M ETHOD
In this section, we will present the proposed method in
detail. The main approach is presented in Fig. 4. The method
can be divided into two phases similar with the method
proposed in [4]. First, moving objects are segmented using
improved Mixture of Gaussian [13] and then tracked using
Kalman filter based multi-object tracker [14].

A tube/activity is defined by the continuous position of
the object, and activity segment is the part of the scene
between entry and exit in a scene of an object. Tracking
and extracting activity is done in real-time which is denoted
by the online-phase. Next, moving objects are grouped in
unsupervised manner and then each group is stitched into
the background using the Poisson image blending [15].
Stitching is done by blending multiple activity in a known
background. Synopsis length (L) is also minimized before
generating the synopsis during this response phase. A response phase is responsible to generate the synopsis of a
time bounded video according to user requirements.
Video synopsis can be considered as an index of the
original video. In addition, video synopsis can save storage
for storing surveillance videos by discarding frames when
there is no activity. The quality of the synopsis highly
depends on the content of the original video and the length of
the synopsis. Also, there are lagging of standard quantitative
measurement that method can be used to compare the quality
of synopsis. However, there are some baseline standards in
video synopsis [4], [9]. They are as follows:
•

The video synopsis should be substantially shorter than
the original video and should preserve the maximum
activities presented in the original video.

}

* Background Extraction.
* Object Detection.
* Object Segmentation.
* Tracking Objects and Extract Tubes.

Endless Video

Event Based Video Indexing

Response Phase

{

Activity cost of objects is defined by the continuous
position of the object during a bounded time. Ea is the
activity cost of the tube segment (b̄ ∪ b¯′ ) that is not included
in the synopsis, Et is the spatio-temporal consistency cost,
Eo is the chronological appearance cost and Ec is the
collision cost. Higher collision cost (Ec ), for example, will
result in a denser video, where objects may overlap.
When collision
the final synopsis
P cost and activity
P cost in
are zero, i.e.
Ec = 0 and
Ea (b̄ ∪ b¯′ ) = 0, all activity
tubes are mapped in the synopsis video. Therefore, the
energy of the synopsis can be defined using (2), where the
spatio-temporal consistency cost (Et (b, b′ )) is the spatiotemporal distance between b and b′ in original and synopsis
videos.

Online Phase

Object Database

Group Tubes

Event Database

* Members in a group appeared in chronological order as in
original video.
* 100% groups / enents are selected by shifting groups until
* Collision cost < threshold
* Synopsis length is minimized.
* Stitching the groups rather than tubes in synopsis video.

Synopsis

E(M ) =

b,b′ ∈S

Fig. 4: Our proposed method of generating synopsis of a
time-bound video. In real-time, moving objects are tracked
and segmented, known as tubes. Tube database is actually
populated during video recording. Synopsis is generated in
response phase by grouping and optimizing the length.
Collision among objects, i.e. overlapping should be
minimized and if possible, be avoided to produce
smooth synopsis.
• Temporal relation among objects, i.e. interaction among
objects must be preserved in the final synopsis.
To maintain quality of the synopsis as mentioned earlier,
we present a method for grouping object activities or tubes
before generating the final synopsis. We calculate the energy
difference between original and synopsis videos. Energy is
defined by calculating pairwise spatio-temporal relation and
chronological order of appearance among the objects.
•

A. Energy Differences
We first define the energy difference between original
and synopses video. If the difference is lower, the synopsis
quality will be higher. The energy summarizes interaction
and chronological appearance among segment of objects.
Let O be the original video and S be its synopsis. Each
tube t is defined over a time-bound segment in the original
video stream tb = [tb s , tb e ], where tb s and tb e are the start
and end frames.
The synopsis video (S) is generated based on a temporal
mapping M over O. The mapping defines the shifting of
objects b into the time segment tb̂ = [tb̂ s , tb̂ e ] in the synopsis
video. M (b) = b̂ indicates the time shift of tubes b into
the synopsis. Optimized synopsis of the video is generated
by minimizing the following energy function defined by
modifying the energy function originally presented in [4].
The energy is defined (1), where b and b′ represent the tubes
present in the video
E(M ) =

X

X

Ea (b̄ ∪ b¯′ ) + Et (b, b′ ) + Eo (b, b′ ) + Ec (b, b′ )



b,b′ ∈S

(1)


Et (b, b′ ) + Eo (b, b′ )

(2)

Et (a, b) is defined in (3), where b, b′ ∈ O and b̂, bˆ′ ∈ S.
Et (b, b′ ) = d(b, b′ ) − d(b̂, bˆ′ ),

(3)

When an object is shifted from a group of interacting
objects, cost of the synopsis increases. The distance (d(a, b))
can be defined as given in (4), where ta , tb represent the time
of appearance of a and b.
(
T
0,
if ta tb = φ.
d(a, b) =
(4)
ds (a, b), otherwise.
T
ta tb is the time intersection of a and b in the video. The
amount of interaction d(a, b) between each pair of tubes is
calculated from their relative spatio-temporal distance, as
defined in (5), where d(a, b, t) is the Euclidean distance
between the tubes at time t, and σarea is the area of the
object.



(5)
d(a, b, t)/σarea
ds (a, b) = E min
T
t∈ta

tb

Chronological appearance cost (Eo ) is the cost of violating chronological order in the synopsis. Eo is defined in
(6). When objects appear in the synopsis by violating their
relative chronological order, the cost becomes higher.
Eo (b, b′ ) = d(b, b′ ) − d(b̂, bˆ′ )

(6)

The cost is calculated using (7), where dch is the constant
cost for violating order of activity appearing in the synopsis,
b, b′ ∈ O, and b̂, bˆ′ ∈ S.
(
T
 0,
if ta tb 6= φ.
s
s
d(a, b) = ta − tb .
(7)
dch (a, b), otherwise.
The cost is further refined using (8), where the constant cost
C is chosen as one.
(
0, if tsb − tsb′ = tsb̂ − tsb̂′ .
dch (a, b) =
(8)
C, otherwise.

Algorithm 1 Grouping of Tubes

B. Effect of Energy Difference E(M )
The length of the synopsis (L) depends on the energy
difference E(M ). If E(M ) = 0, there is no difference
between original video and synopsis. Hence L is equal to the
length of the original video. If E(M ) is maximum, we allow
a maximum shifting of tubes. It may produce a synopsis
of different length based on the original content of the
video. However, sometimes tracking of objects fails loosing
identity [16] or force fragmenting tubes as described in [4].
It creates multiple tubes for the same moving object or group
of objects. During optimization, these tubes are considered
as different objects. Generated synopsis using these shortduration tubes often suffers from the below drawbacks:
• Shifting tubes randomly may produce confusing synopsis by showing multiple appearances of an object in
the same frame.
• Sometimes, tubes belonging to the similar activity
group violate the order of chronological appearance
in synopsis. It may cause sudden appearance and disappearance of the objects and loss in chronological
activity may be observed in the synopsis. This is
explained as follows. Let, ta and tb be two tubes such
that tsa < tsb . In the synopsis, if ta and tb are part of the
same moving object, i.e. ta , tb ∈ T , when tb appears
before ta , it loses the chronological ordering.
• Sometimes, objects are shifted to different temporal
segment to minimize the synopsis length despite having
strong interaction. For example, they may share similar
temporal segment in the original video. It loses the
interaction information.

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12:
13:
14:
15:
16:
17:
18:

procedure GROUP TUBES(O)
⊲ Group tubes
R = {φ}
for (a=t1 ...tn ) do
if a ∈
/ R then
G = {a}
R=R∪G
end if
for (b=t1 ...tn ) do
if b ∈
/ R then
if ds (a, b) < α OR (tsa − tsb ) < β then
G = G ∪ b, where a ∈ G
break
end if
end if
end for
end for
return R
end procedure

groups in the synopsis. The groups are initially selected in
chronological order. Then, a group is fitted into a desired
location. The process is depicted in Fig. 5.

C. Grouping of Tubes and Synopsis Length Minimization
To overcome the aforementioned problems, we have proposed a method of grouping object trajectories or tubes.
Shifting of objects in the synopsis is then restricted by
grouping them together. Relative spatio-temporal distance
and chronological appearance of objects in the same group
is unchanged in the final synopsis. Hence Et (a, b) = 0
and Eo (a, b) = 0 such that a, b ∈ G. Grouping helps
to bind related tubes together. Groups are generated based
on the spatio-temporal distance (ds (a, b)) and chronological
distance. Let the original video (O) be represented using (9),
where ti represents the tubes present in the scene. Tubes are
grouped together, and the scene is represented using (10),
where G is a set of tubes grouped together.
O = {t1 , t2 , ..., tn }

(9)

S = {G1 , G2 , ..., Gm }

(10)

ta and tb are assumed to be in the same group, if they
chronologically appear or interact within a fixed threshold.
It can be expressed as ta , tb ∈ G, when ds (a, b) < α or
tsa − tsb < β, where α is the maximum distance to measure
the interaction and β represents the maximum chronological
distance for grouping. The algorithm for grouping the tubes
are presented in Algorithm 1.
The original video is represented by a set of groups. The
synopsis length is minimized by shifting and stitching the

Fig. 5: Process of minimization of synopsis length.
D. Effect of α and β
The energy difference (E(M )) and length of synopsis (L) are related to each other. Spatio-temporal threshold (α) can be defined in the boundary as α =
[min(ds (a, b)), max(ds (a, b))] and chronological ordering
threshold (β) defined in the boundary as β = [min(tsa −
tsb ), max(tsa − tsb )], ∀a, b ∈ O. If α = min(ds (a, b)) and
β = min(tsa − tsb ), then the number of groups is equal to
the number of tubes present in O. It may produce a synopsis

with higher E(M ) when objects are shifted to reduce the
synopsis length. Similarly, when α = max(ds (a, b)) and
β = max(tsa − tsb ), all tubes belong to a single group, hence
E(M ) = 0 resulting the original video and the synopsis
as of same length. It has also been observed that, grouping
spatio-temporal or chronological tubes together, sometimes
produces smaller synopsis.

Similarly, Fig. 7 shows the synopsis length by varying
β, considering α = 0. It has also been observed that,
synopsis length gradually increases after a certain value
of β. It happens because moving objects which appear
chronologically with large β interval, are considered in the
same group. When β reaches its peak value, all moving
objects create a single group. The length of the synopsis
then becomes same as the original video.
15000

5400
5200
5000
4800
4600
4400
4200

0

50

100
150
Spatio−temporal threshold (α)

200

250

Fig. 6: Relation between spatio-temporal relation threshold
(α) and synopsis length. Red curve represents results using KIST dataset and black curve represents results using
VIRAT dataset videos.

III. E XPERIMENTS

AND

R ESULTS

In this section, we present qualitative and quantitative
analysis of our proposed method. We have experimented
with two datasets, namely VIRAT [17] and in-house KIST.
VIRAT dataset contains 16 minutes long video that are
publicly available and KIST is our in-house dataset of
approximately 30 minutes duration.
We first present the relation among spatio-temporal
threshold (α), chronological ordering threshold
 (β), synopsis length (L), and energy difference E(M ) . Fig. 6 shows
the synopsis length by varying α, considering β = 0. It has
been found that the synopsis length becomes almost constant
beyond a certain value of α. It happens because all moving
objects create a minimum number of groups based on the
α.

Synopsis length (number of frames)

5500
5000
4500
4000

Synopsis length (number of frames)

Synopsis length (number of frames)

5600

10000

5000

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Energy Differece (E(M))

0.7

0.8

Fig. 8: Relation between synopsis length (L) and energy
difference (E(M )). Red curve represents results using KIST
dataset and black curve represents results using VIRAT
dataset videos.

Fig. 8 shows how synopsis length vary when E(M )
is varied. It has been observed that the energy difference
decreases when the length of the synopsis increases after
a threshold. The energy difference (E(M )) becomes zero
when the length of the synopsis is same as the length of the
original video.
Fig. 9 depicts a set of frames related to two different
synopsis outputs obtained by the algorithm proposed in [4],
[8], [9], [11], [12] and using our proposed method. Frames
that are marked red show sudden appearance and disappearance of objects in the synopsis generated using the method
proposed in [4]. If the synopsis length is minimized to
show maximum activity, existing method produces synopsis
with high E(M ) as depicted in the first row. It has been
observed that, when E(M ) is low by grouping objects
(second row), it produces better synopsis outputs. It has been
observed that when the synopsis is generated using [4], [8],
[9], [11], [12], due to high E(M ), the outputs are often
discrete and confusing as compared to our method. We
have restricted shifting of objects by grouping, therefore,
our method produces longer synopsis with a lower energy
difference.

3500

IV. C ONCLUSION

3000
2500
2000
1500

0

200
400
600
800
Chronological distance threshold (β)

1000

Fig. 7: Relation between chronological distance threshold
(β) and synopsis length (L). Red curve represents results
using KIST dataset and black curve represents results using
VIRAT dataset videos.

We have proposed a method of video synopsis generation.
Our proposed method produces more meaningful synopsis as
compared to the existing methods. It has been observed that,
by grouping object trajectories, spatio-temporal relations
among the objects can be preserved with higher accuracy.
We have tested our methodology on publicly available video
dataset and in-house dataset. Initial results are encouraging
and the method can be applied on larger scale. There are
many possible extensions of the present work. We can

Fig. 9: Sample synopsis output frames taken from the KIST dataset. First row represents synopsis when energy difference
(E(M ) is high, and the second row is the synopsis when energy difference is low by grouping objects. It has been
observed that, sudden appearance and disappearance of small tubes (red bordered) can be minimized when energy is low.
It is visually less confusing too.

group the trajectories based on various other criteria such as
interest area based [18]–[20], movement graph based [21],
by supervised or unsupervised machine learning [22], [23],
or by using deep learning to understand the activities based
on region(s) of interest [18].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work has been funded under Global Knowledge
Platform (GKP) institutional program scheme (Project No.
2E27190) of Indo-Korea Science and Technology Center
(IKST) and Korea Institute of Science and Technology
(KIST) executed at IIT Bhubaneswar under Project Code:
CP106.
R EFERENCES
[1] B. M. Wildemuth, G. Marchionini, M. Yang, G. Geisler, T. Wilkens,
A. Hughes, and R. Gruss, “How fast is too fast?: evaluating fast
forward surrogates for digital video,” in Proceedings of the 3rd
ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries. IEEE Computer
Society, 2003, pp. 221–230.
[2] N. Petrovic, N. Jojic, and T. S. Huang, “Adaptive video fast forward,”
Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 327–344, 2005.
[3] Y.-F. Ma and H.-J. Zhang, “A model of motion attention for video
skimming,” in Image Processing. 2002. Proceedings. 2002 International Conference on, vol. 1. IEEE, 2002, pp. I–129.
[4] Y. Pritch, A. Rav-Acha, and S. Peleg, “Nonchronological video
synopsis and indexing,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1971–1984, 2008.
[5] Y. Nie, C. Xiao, H. Sun, and P. Li, “Compact video synopsis via global
spatiotemporal optimization,” IEEE transactions on visualization and
computer graphics, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1664–1676, 2013.
[6] C. Pal and N. Jojic, “Interactive montages of sprites for indexing
and summarizing security video,” in 2005 IEEE Computer Society
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05),
vol. 2. IEEE, 2005, pp. 1192–vol.
[7] N. Manickam and S. Chandran, “Automontage: Photo sessions made
easy,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing.
IEEE, 2013, pp. 1321–1325.
[8] A. Rav-Acha, Y. Pritch, and S. Peleg, “Making a long video short:
Dynamic video synopsis,” in 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’06), vol. 1.
IEEE, 2006, pp. 435–441.
[9] Y. Pritch, S. Ratovitch, A. Hendel, and S. Peleg, “Clustered synopsis of surveillance video,” in Advanced Video and Signal Based
Surveillance, 2009. AVSS’09. Sixth IEEE International Conference
on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 195–200.
[10] H.-W. Kang, Y. Matsushita, X. Tang, and X.-Q. Chen, “Space-time
video montage,” in 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’06), vol. 2. IEEE,
2006, pp. 1331–1338.
[11] X. Li, Z. Wang, and X. Lu, “Surveillance video synopsis via scaling
down objects,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 25, no. 2,
pp. 740–755, 2016.

[12] T. Yao, M. Xiao, C. Ma, C. Shen, and P. Li, “Object based video synopsis,” in Advanced Research and Technology in Industry Applications
(WARTIA), 2014 IEEE Workshop on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1138–1141.
[13] Z. Zivkovic, “Improved adaptive gaussian mixture model for background subtraction,” in Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on, vol. 2. IEEE,
2004, pp. 28–31.
[14] G. Welch and G. Bishop, “An introduction to the kalman filter,” in
Annu. Conf. Comput. Graph. Interact. Techn. ACM, 2001, pp. 12–17.
[15] P. Pérez, M. Gangnet, and A. Blake, “Poisson image editing,” in ACM
Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 22, no. 3. ACM, 2003, pp.
313–318.
[16] H. Yang, L. Shao, F. Zheng, L. Wang, and Z. Song, “Recent advances
and trends in visual tracking: A review,” Neurocomputing, vol. 74,
no. 18, pp. 3823–3831, 2011.
[17] S. Oh, A. Hoogs, A. Perera, N. Cuntoor, C.-C. Chen, J. T. Lee,
S. Mukherjee, J. Aggarwal, H. Lee, L. Davis, et al., “A largescale benchmark dataset for event recognition in surveillance video,”
in Computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2011 IEEE
conference on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 3153–3160.
[18] S. A. Ahmed, D. P. Dogra, S. Kar, B.-G. Kim, P. Hill, and H. Bhaskar,
“Localization of region of interest in surveillance scene,” Multimedia
Tools and Applications, pp. 1–30, 2016.
[19] D. P. Dogra, A. Ahmed, and H. Bhaskar, “Smart video summarization
using mealy machine-based trajectory modelling for surveillance
applications,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 75, no. 11,
pp. 6373–6401, 2016.
[20] D. Dogra, A. Ahmed, and H. Bhaskar, “Interest area localization
using trajectory analysis in surveillance scenes,” in Proceedings of
the 10th International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and
Applications, March 2015, pp. 478–485.
[21] D. Dogra, R. Reddy, K. Subramanyam, A. Ahmed, and H. Bhaskar,
“Scene representation and anomalous activity detection using
weighted region association graph,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Vision Theory and Applications,
March 2015, pp. 104–112.
[22] R. Saini, A. Ahmed, D. P. Dogra, and P. P. Roy, “Surveillance
scene segmentation based on trajectory classification using supervised
learning,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Computer
Vision and Image Processing, 2017, pp. 261–271.
[23] ——, “Classification of object trajectories represented by high-level
features using unsupervised learning,” in Proceedings of International
Conference on Computer Vision and Image Processing, 2017, pp.
273–284.

