EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Mark A. Keck
dblp:06/1933
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 2 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Video understanding and tracking · 53% 3D vision · 47% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking › object tracking
3d object tracking |
0.2 | 3 | 2011 | Recovery and Reasoning About Occlusions in 3D Using Few Cameras with Applications to 3D Tracking · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2011 Kernel-Based 3D Tracking · CVPR 2007 3D occlusion recovery using few cameras · CVPR 2008 |
Computer vision › 3D vision › 3d scene understanding
occlusion reasoning |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Recovery and Reasoning About Occlusions in 3D Using Few Cameras with Applications to 3D Tracking · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2011 |
Computer vision › 3D vision
3d reconstruction |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | 3D occlusion recovery using few cameras · CVPR 2008 |
Computer vision › 3D vision › 3d scene understanding › occlusion reasoning
occlusion modeling |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | 3D occlusion recovery using few cameras · CVPR 2008 |
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking
multi-camera tracking |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Kernel-Based 3D Tracking · CVPR 2007 |
Computer vision › Video understanding and tracking
object tracking |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Kernel-Based 3D Tracking · CVPR 2007 |
Computer vision › 3D vision › 3d reconstruction
multi-view reconstruction |
0.0 | 1 | 2011 | Recovery and Reasoning About Occlusions in 3D Using Few Cameras with Applications to 3D Tracking · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2011 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
probabilistic occlusion model · 0.1graph cuts · 0.1energy minimization · 0.1kernel-based tracking · 0.1appearance feature fusion · 0.13d point cloud clustering · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Recovery and Reasoning About Occlusions in 3D Using Few Cameras with Applications to 3D Tracking
Mark A. Keck, James W. Davis |
Int. J. Comput. Vis. | 1 |
| 2008 | 3D occlusion recovery using few camerasabstractWe present a practical framework for detecting and modeling 3D static occlusions for wide-baseline, multi-camera scenarios where the number of cameras is small. The framework consists of an iterative learning procedure where at each frame the occlusion model is used to solve the voxel occupancy problem, and this solution is then used to update the occlusion model. Along with this iterative procedure, there are two contributions of the proposed work: (1) a novel energy function (which can be minimized via graph cuts) specifically designed for use in this procedure, and (2) an application that incorporates our probabilistic occlusion model into a 3D tracking system. Both qualitative and quantitative results of the proposed algorithm and its incorporation with a 3D tracker are presented for support. Mark A. Keck, James W. Davis |
CVPR | 1 |
| 2007 | Kernel-Based 3D TrackingabstractWe present a computer vision system for robust object tracking in 3D by combining evidence from multiple calibrated cameras. This kernel-based 3D tracker is automatically bootstrapped by constructing 3D point clouds. These points clouds are then clustered and used to initialize the trackers and validate their performance. The framework describes a complete tracking system that fuses appearance features from all available camera sensors and is capable of automatic initialization and drift detection. Its elegance resides in its inherent ability to handle problems encountered by various 2D trackers, including scale selection, occlusion, view-dependence, and correspondence across views. Tracking results for an indoor smart room and a multi-camera outdoor surveillance scenario are presented. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this unified approach by comparing its performance to a baseline 3D tracker that fuses results of independent 2D trackers, as well as comparing the re-initialization results to known ground truth. Ambrish Tyagi, Mark A. Keck, James W. Davis, Gerasimos Potamianos |
CVPR | 2 |