Intelligent ROI-Based Vehicle Counting Framework for Automated Traffic Monitoring
Authors: Mohamed A. Abdelwahab, Zaynab Al-Ariny, Mahmoud Fakhry, El-Sayed Hasaneen
Organizations: Electrical Engineering Dept., Faculty of Energy Engineering, Aswan University, Aswan, Egypt · Information Technology Dept., New Assiut Technological University (NATU), Assiut, Egypt · Electrical Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt · Electrical Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Aswan University, Aswan, Egypt · CEIEC Research Institute, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain
Accurate vehicle counting through video surveillance is crucial for efficient traffic management. However, achieving high counting accuracy while ensuring computational efficiency remains a challenge. To address this, we propose a fully automated, video-based vehicle counting framework designed to optimize both computational efficiency and counting accuracy. Our framework operates in two distinct phases: estimation and prediction. In the estimation phase, the optimal region of interest (ROI) is automatically determined using a novel combination of three models based on detection scores, tracking scores, and vehicle density. This adaptive approach ensures compatibility with any detection and tracking method, enhancing the framework's versatility. In the prediction phase, vehicle counting is efficiently performed within the estimated ROI. We evaluated our framework on benchmark datasets like UA-DETRAC, GRAM, CDnet 2014, and ATON. Results demonstrate exceptional accuracy, with most videos achieving 100% accuracy, while also enhancing computational efficiency, making processing up to four times faster than full-frame processing. The framework outperforms existing techniques, especially in complex multi-road scenarios, demonstrating robustness and superior accuracy. These advancements make it a promising solution for real-time traffic monitoring.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The optimal region for vehicle counting varies considerably between videos. Interestingly, each video demonstrates strong internal consistency, with the best region-highlighted in yellow-remaining relatively stable throughout the video. (a), (b) and (c) show the counting accuracy of different videos from the UA-DETRAC dataset
Figure 2: Key components of the proposed AIR-VC framework, including estimation and prediction phases
Figure 3: The camera-limited regions (highlighted in red) for different scenarios from the UA-DETRAC dataset. For the area near the camera, the camera angle restricts the visibility of the leftmost and rightmost lanes in (a) and (b). In (c), an obstacle hides the middle area of the frame
Figure 4: Identifying the HDDR: A Heatmap is generated using the previously obtained detection scores. The HDDR (region within cl1 and cl2 ) is identified according to the generated heat map. The HDDR is represented by the wider region with the most vehicle detections
Figure 5: Selecting the optimal counting line(the red dashed line) within the HDDR which indicated by ( cl1 , cl2 )
Figure 6: Samples of selected ROI for videos from UA-DETRAC Dataset. Samples show videos with (a) vertical and (b) horizontal traffic flow
Sequence
Entire Frame
AIR-VC
Speed
h×w
FPS
h×w
FPS
Imp.
M_30
480 × 800
32
98 × 800
114
255%
Highway
240 × 320
26
112 × 320
53
103%
HighwayII
240 × 320
26
36 × 320
115
337%
MVI_63521
540 × 960
32
99 × 960
114
258%
MVI_40992
540 × 960
26
540 × 376
32
23%
Table 1: Processing speed (FPS) using the entire frame and the proposed AIR-VC for each video sequence. h×w refers to the sequence resolution (Height × Width). The last column shows the speed improvement achieved by using AIR-VC compared to using the entire frame.
Figure 7: Counting accuracy for M-30, Highway and HighwayII video sequences using clo selected by the proposed AIR-VC (red line) and other uniformly distributed counting lines across the frame (white lines)
Figure 8: Counting accuracy for video sequences from UA-DETRAC dataset using clo selected by the proposed AIR-VC (red line) and other uniformly distributed counting lines across the frame (white lines)
Sequence
M-30
Highway
HighwayII
lanes
4
2
4
S. Li [ 6 ]
100%
96.3%
N/A
Abdelwahab [ 8 ]
93.51%
96.43%
95.83%
Zaynab [ 9 ]
98.7%
100%
97.9%
A. Gomaa [ 2 ]
100%
100%
97.9%
Adson [ 1 ]
98.7%
100%
97.92%
Table 2: Counting accuracy comparison for M-30, Highway and HighwayII video sequences.
Sequence
S. Li [ 7 ]
Yang [ 32 ]
Proposed
name
lanes
AIR-VC
MVI_63521
3+3
97.56%
N/A
100%
MVI_40992
2
N/A
N/A
100%
MVI_40963
5
98.57%
N/A
100%
MVI_40192
4+4
99.08%
97.96%
98.9%
Table 3: Counting accuracy comparison for video sequences from UA-DETRAC dataset.
Sequence
Accuracy
name
lanes
M-30
3+3+4
99.1%
HighwayII
3+4
85.7%
MVI_40963
1+5+3
98.1%
Table 4: Counting accuracy for M-30, HighwayII and MVI_40963 video sequences considering multi-roads scenario using the proposed AIR-VC.
Figure 9: Counting accuracy considering multi-roads scenario using clo selected by the proposed AIR-VC (red line) and other uniformly distributed counting lines across the frame (white lines)
Ankageo Co. Ltd., Yıldız Technical University, İkitelli Technopark, 34220 Istanbul, Türkiye · Department of Computer Engineering, Istanbul Arel University, 34537 Istanbul, Türkiye · Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Biruni University, 34015 Istanbul, Türkiye