See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327557671

A Neuro-Fuzzy Crime Prediction Model Based on Video Analysis

Article  in  Chinese Journal of Electronics · September 2018

DOI: 10.1049/cje.2018.02.019

CITATIONS READS
3 214

1 author:

Mohammed Nurudeen
University of Professional Studies
9 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

E-marking system for essay-type of exams View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammed Nurudeen on 10 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chinese Journal of Electronics
Vol.27, No.5, Sept. 2018

A Neuro-Fuzzy Crime Prediction Model Based on

Video Analysis∗
ZOU Beiji1,3 , Nurudeen Mohammed1,3 , ZHU Chengzhang2,3 , ZHANG Ziqian1,3 ,
ZHAO Rongchang1,3 and WANG Lei1,3
(1. School of Information Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)
(2. College of Literature and Journalism, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)
(3. Mobile Health Ministry of Education-China Mobile Joint Laboratory, Changsha 410083, China)

Abstract — A hybrid neuro-fuzzy model for predicting
crime in a wide area such as a town or district in presented.
The model is built using what we describe as crime indica-
tor events extracted from simulated wide area surveillance
network. The framework principally involves two phases,
namely video analysis and crime modeling phases. In video
analysis a concept based approach for video event detec-
tion is used to detect crime indicator events. Based on
the extracted indicators with other related variables, a
fuzzy inference system capable of learning is constructed
in the second phase. The model is constructed using Vi-
olent scene detection (VSD) 2014 dataset and testing is
done using UCR-Videoweb dataset. The experimental re-
sults show that the proposed method is quite demonstra-
tive and promising.
Key words — Hybrid intelligent systems (HIS), Sub-
tractive clustering, Video event detection, Crime predic-
tion.
I. Introduction
The idea of predictive policing which often involves the
use of information technology to prevent crime is one that
continues gaining the attention of law enforcement officers
and researchers across the globe. At the center stage of
predictive policing is crime prediction and hotspot analy-
sis. This often helps in providing law enforcement officers
with a better insight on what to anticipate and what kind
of policing tactics should be deployed to quell a potential
security threat[1,2] . Crime prediction becomes even more
important under situations where policing resources are
limited and requires better prioritization.
Traditional crime prediction methods often involve
statistical analysis of past crime records. More recent
∗ Manuscript Received Dec. 29, 2016; Accepted Nov. 15, 2017. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
methods have incorporated socio-economic, demographic
and spatio temporal factors[3] . These methods have been
proved to be successful, but there still remain some chal-
lenges as methods do not to meet real time demands. In
the light of this we intend to exploit video surveillance for
wide area crime prediction using hybrid intelligent system
technology.
To this effect we present a neuro-fuzzy crime predic-
tion system model which extracts its rule base from train-
ing data and is also capable tuning its membership func-
tion parameters by adaptive learning.
The main contributions of this paper include:
1) Identifying and modeling video based crime indica-
tor events.
2) Building a data centric crime predictive model ca-
pable of learning.
3) Using video based indicator for wide area crime pre-
diction. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Sec-
tion II contains review of relevant literature. Section III
contains proposed model framework. Section IV contains
surveillance network design, description of dataset and ex-
periments. Section V concludes the paper with summary
of our work and future direction.
II. Related Works
1. Video analysis
Video based event detection (VBED) is an active
area of research in computer vision and there exist sev-
eral methods for VBED in literature[4] . Some of the no-
table works include Izadinia and Shah[5] who proposed a

of China (No.61573380, No.61702559) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University
(No.2017zzts715, No.2017zzts723).
c 2018 Chinese Institute of Electronics. DOI:10.1049/cje.2018.02.019
 A Neuro-Fuzzy Crime Prediction Model Based on Video Analysis
method for recognizing complex events by modeling low-
level event concepts using latent SVM framework. Ehsan
et al.[6] also proposed a complex event recognition method
that uses a combination of trained concept detectors with
a latent temporal model. Their argument is that concepts
in an event tend to articulate over a discernible tempo-
ral structure hence they exploited the temporal model
using the scores of concept detectors as measurements.
Shayan et al.[7] proposed a contextual approach for video
classification based on Generalized maximum clique prob-
lem (GMCP) which uses the co-occurrence of concepts
as a context model. Beiji et al.[8] proposed video based
event recognition method using concept attributes. In
their method events are modeled in a semantic concept
space using a variety of complementary semantic features.
This method has a better generalization capability and it
can recognize events with few or even no training exam-
ples. The approach adopted is based on Ref.[8].
2. Hybrid intelligent systems
Hybrid intelligent systems (HIS) has attracted a lot of
attention across various fields of science and engineering
research over the years, which often involves the combina-
tion of at least two intelligent technologies. This is mainly
due to the promising prospects of solving real world prob-
lems with soft computing approaches where hard comput-
ing often fails to produce any solutions[9] . The integration
of Fuzzy inference systems (FIS) and Artificial neural net-
works (ANN) is one good example of HIS. In this kind of
combination the learning capability becomes an advan-
tage from the viewpoint of FIS and the formation of lin-
guistic rules becomes an advantage from the viewpoint of
ANN[10] .
A notable example of the combination ANN and FIS
is ANFIS proposed by Jang[10]. ANFIS is Sugeno type
FIS with five layers called and it relies on backpropa-
gation learning determining the premise parameters and
least mean square estimation for determining the con-
sequent parameters. Another model is FALCON pro-
posed by Bherenji and Khedkar[11] , which uses a hybrid-
learning algorithm to locate initial membership functions
and rule base. Then optimally adjust the membership
function parameters by gradient descent learning. Nauck
and Kruse[12] proposed NEFCON which is Mamdani type
FIS. In their model the learning process is based on a
mixture of reinforcement and backpropagation learning.
NEFCON can be used to learn an initial rule base if no
prior knowledge about the system is available or even to
optimize a manually defined rule base. NEFCON has two
variants: NEFPROX (for function approximation) and
NEFCLASS (for classification tasks).
III. Proposed Framework
1. Overview of framework
Before we begin it is important to mention that the
proposed framework intends to model crimes that fall un-
969
der routine activity theory, rational choice theory and
crime pattern theory[1] . This is because not all crimes can
be predicted and we intend to focus on those that fol-
low some patterns. That been said, our proposed frame-
work has two consecutive phases namely video analysis
and crime prediction. In the video analysis phase crime in-
dicator events are model using a semantic concept space[8]
and new videos are classified based on the modeled crime
indicators. In the crime modeling phase, a neuro-fuzzy
interference system is developed. First subtractive clus-
tering is used to construct the FIS structure in order to
extract the initial fuzzy rules. Then the membership func-
tion parameters are adaptively tuned by a combination of
backpropagation gradient descent and least mean square
estimation methods[13] . Fig.1 is the proposed framework
diagram.
2. Concept detection
To begin, we defined our crime indicator concept space
C K as a K-dimensional semantic space, where each dimen-
sion encodes the value of a semantic property[8] . Hence we
established a semantic space made up of K defined con-
cepts C = {C1 , C2 , · · · , CK }. These defined concepts are
actions, scene and object concepts extracted from training
videos. To extract action concepts from training videos we
adopted a Spatio-temporal interest points chain (STIPC)
model[14] . This chain model extract local space-time fea-
tures (Histogram of oriented gradient (HOG) and His-
togram of optical flow (HOF) features) around discontin-
uous motion points from sequences of images and then
encodes the temporal relationships between interdepen-
dent local space-time features. Thus action concepts are
modeled by generating codebook of chain features from
training sequences using k-mean clustering and bag of
features representation. To classifier action concept we
trained binary SVM classifiers with chi-square(χ2) Radial
base function (RBF) kernel.
For scene and object concepts we used Difference of
Gaussian (DoG) and Hessian Affine detectors for extract-
ing local key-points and we used SIFT descriptors for de-
scribing key-points[14,15]. To model our scene and object
concepts, we built supervised SVM classifiers from labeled
images in a Bag-of-visual words (BoW) framework using
(χ2 ) RBF kernel. Then we used average fusion to com-
bine the classification outputs generated by the different
key-points detectors. For our binary SVM classifiers, the
decision function for a test sample x is expressed as fol-
lows: 
g(x) = αi ci K(ti , t) − b (1)
i
where ti denotes the training sample and K(ti , t) de-
notes the response of the kernel function αi . and b respec-
tively denote the learned weight and class label of the
training sample and is the learned threshold parameter.
We adopt χ2 as RBF Kernel because it is one the most
970 Chinese Journal of Electronics
Fig. 1. Proposed framework diagram
effective kernel functions for BoW features in the context
of semantic concept detection compared to Gaussian RBF
kernel. This is because the linear exponential decay of the
χ2 RBF Kernel produces a comparatively small response
to the background variance[16] . The Generalized forms of
the RBF kernel is as follows:
K(q, r) = e−ρd(q,r)
where d(q, r) can be chosen as any distance in the fea-
ture space since BoW is a histogram of visual words
with discrete densities. The (χ2 ) distance is given as:
 (qi −ri )2 [17]
dχ2 (q, r) = qi +ri . Hence the χ2 RBF Kernel can
i
be expressed as follows:
„ «
P (qi −ri )2
−ρ i qi +ri
Kχ2 (q, r) = e
3. Indicator event modeling
To model our reference crime indicators, we collected
n indicator video segments as our training set and we
annotated the video segments based on the K defined
concepts. We then trained K concept detectors establish-
ing a K-dimensional samantic space. Using the semantic
concept space, we built a K-dimentional vector model for
each of the n reference indicators. The vector model em-
bodies a unique decription of each reference indicator in
the semantic space with binary bins to indicating the pres-
ence or absence of each k concept. Giving the reference
indicator models, segments of a query vedio can be clas-
sifyed by computing the semantic simalarity between the
2018
query segments and the reference indicator models. For
instance if we take C l = (Cil , Cil , · · · , Cnl ) as the descrip-
tion of crime indicator l in semantic space, then given a
query video segment M , we can compute its label l as:
 
l = argmaxl∈L S φ(M ), C l (4)
where φ = φ1 , · · · , φk is a binary bin (φ ∈ [0, 1]) indicating
(2)
the confidence of each K concept detector and S is a func-
tion measuring the semantic affinity between two points
in the semantic concept space. The function S can be de-
fined by RBF kernel with Chi-square distance as given in
Eq.(3).
IV. Experiments and Results
1. Surveillance network design
(3)
To design a surveillance network for the experiments,
a simulated area of 130km2 in size is created as shown in
Fig.2. The area is divided in 5 zones and a surveillance
camera network is hosted on the area using a grid frame-
work with a block dimension of 1000m×1000m. The grid
blocks are subdivided into 4 (n × n) mini-blocks each. A
surveillance camera is assigned to each mini-block rep-
resenting the real time video sources. We created Local
processing point (LPP) at the center of each selected grid
block. It should be noted that not all the grid blocks
were selected, as it is assumed that some locations con-
tain natural obstacles. So in short each grid block has
four surveillance cameras with LPP server at the cen-
ter. The LPP servers receive surveillance footage (in real
 A Neuro-Fuzzy Crime Prediction Model Based on Video Analysis
time) from their respective grid blocks in a star topology
fashion. Indicator detection and crime prediction are per-
formed at the LPP servers. After which the outputs of
all LPP servers are transmitted to a Central processing
station (CPS) for indicator pattern visualization (crime
likelihood representation).
2. Data collection
For our experiments we used the Violent scene detec-
tion (VSD) 2014 dataset for constructing the FIS model
and extracting the fuzzy rules. VSD2014 is an appropri-
ate dataset for our task because it includes diverse out-
door scenes and events that bear close alignment to real-
world scenarios[18]. The dataset is collected from various
sources including user-generated videos shared on the web
and popular Hollywood movies ranging from very violent
ones to nonviolent ones. For testing we used UCR-Video
web dataset. The dataset consists of about two and half
hours of video observed from at least 4 cameras in dif-
ferent scenes for over many days. Each scene is observed
by a camera network where the actual number of cameras
changes by scene due the nature of the scene.
To begin, we sample 200 short clips from the VSD
datasets based on our concept definitions and use them
as our training set. The clips are of different lengths rang-
ing from 3 seconds to 5 minutes and they are sampled at a
frame rate of 20Hz with a pixel resolution of 640×480. The
clips are annotated and used for training and validation.
For action concepts we annotated video segments and for
object and scene concepts we annotated key-frames. For
the UCR-Video web dataset no annotation was done and
we sample 800 clips and used them for testing.
Fig. 2. Surveillance network design
3. Video analysis experiments
We modeled 5 indicator events using a concept space
of 88 concepts which includes 52 action concepts (such
as: punch, slap, kick, fall, run), 15 scene concepts (such
as: crowd, street, park, residential, bush) and 21 object
concepts (such as: gun, knife, fire, face mask, car). Each
indicator event has at least 100 segments in the entire
sampled training videos. We used the combination Bag
971
of concepts (BoC) and Co-occurrence of concepts (CoC)
representations methods. BoC measures the frequency of
occurrence of each concept over the whole video clip, while
CoC uses pairwise probability of concepts co-occurrence
in a clip[14,15] . Table 1 is the evaluation results of using
BoC and CoC methods with our five crime indicators.
Table 1. The average precision of indicator recognition
using various feature representation method
Arms Property Traffic Physical Verbal
threat encroachment violation struggle assault
BoC 68.43 66.01 63.44 66.95 65.55
CoC 66.12 67.67 62.68 67.82 65.14
Combined 72.04 68.78 66.10 70.04 68.43
From the results in Table 1 it can be seen that no indi-
vidual method clearly outperforms the other in all indica-
tors. However a combination of the methods outperforms
the individual methods in all the indicators. This shows
that the two methods are complementary. In terms of in-
dicator performance it can be seen that arms threat has
the best average recognition precision while traffic viola-
tion has the lowest average recognition precision.
For evaluation of our concept based indicator detec-
tion method we used 10-fold leave-one-out cross valida-
tion approach. We created a semantic concept space uti-
lizing the annotated clips of 9 folds and used the rest of
the clips for validation. In modeling the semantic concept
space we created an 88-dimensional model vector for each
indicator event. The vector holds binary values indicat-
ing the presence or absence of each of the 88 concepts.
Each indicator class is trained with binary SVM using χ2
RBF kernel. For comparison purpose we also implemented
Refs.[4–6] which are state-of-the-art concept based event
recognition methods. To do the comparison we evaluated
indicator classification as a function of number of positive
training examples.
Fig.3(a) to Fig.3(e) show the average precision of in-
dividual event using various methods and Fig.3(f ) shows
the mean average precision over all events using the var-
ious methods. From Fig.3(a) to Fig.3(e), it can be seen
that all the methods show an increasing average preci-
sion with increasing number of positive training exam-
ples. Besides, it can also be observed that our method
shows similar performance with state-of- the-art methods
in terms of individual indicators. However from Fig.3(f )
it can be seen that our method shows some improvements
over the others with regard to the minimum number of the
training examples needed to attain good precision. More
importantly, the greatest advantage of our method over
the others is that it permits the manual description of the
indicator vectors because of the use of a semantic concept
space. With a good knowledge of the indicator events,
a K-dimensional vector model can be manually built for
each indicator without training examples and later tuned
using training data if necessary.
972 Chinese Journal of Electronics 2018

80 80

Average precision
Average precision
60 60

1 [Izadinia and Shah,12] 1 [Izadinia and Shah,12]

40 2 [Ehsan et al., 14] 40 2 [Ehsan et al., 14]
3 [Shayan et al., 14] 3 [Shayan et al., 14]
4 Our method 4 Our method
20 20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of positive training examples Number of positive training examples
(a) Physical struggle (b) Verbal assault
80 70

Average precision
Average precision

60
60
50
1 [Izadinia and Shah,12] 40 1 [Izadinia and Shah,12]
40 2 [Ehsan et al., 14] 2 [Ehsan et al., 14]
3 [Shayan et al., 14] 30 3 [Shayan et al., 14]
4 Our method 4 Our method
20 20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of positive training examples Number of positive training examples
(c) Arms threat
(d) Property encrouchment
80 80
Average precision

Average precision
60 60

[Izadinia and Shah,12] 1 [Izadinia and Shah,12]

1 40 2 [Ehsan et al., 14]
40 2 [Ehsan et al., 14]
[Shayan et al., 14] 3 [Shayan et al., 14]
3 Our method
Our method 4
4
20 20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of positive training examples Number of positive training examples
(e) Traffic violation ( f ) Mean AP over all events
80 80
Average precision

Average precision

60 60

1 [Izadinia and Shah,12] 1 [Izadinia and Shah,12]

40 2 [Ehsan et al., 14] 40 2 [Ehsan et al., 14]
3 [Shayan et al., 14] 3 [Shayan et al., 14]
4 Our method 4 Our method
20 20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of positive training examples Number of positive training examples
(g) Traffic violation (h) Mean AP over all events

Fig. 3. Performance comparison of event recognition methods as the number of positive training examples increases

4. Neuro-fuzzy modelling experiments To model FIS structure we first performed subtractive

In this sub-section we will model the FIS structure, clustering on the fuzzy inputs and output using different
extract the initial fuzzy rules and tune the parameters clustering radii (from 0.25 to 0.5) for our 7 input vari-
of the membership functions by learning. To do this, we ables based on expert advice. The clustering radii specify
extracted the fuzzy inputs and output dataset from the a range of influence in each of each input variable. Specifi-
annotated training videos hosted on our surveillance net- cally we used 0.3, 0.25, 0.45, 0.3, 0.35, 0.5 and 0.4 respec-
work. We then divide it into training and checking sets. tively for physical struggle, verbal assault, arms threat,
Specifically we used 50% for training, 25% for testing the property encroachment, traffic violation, crime rate and
FIS parameters (referred to as checking set-1) and the time of event. After obtaining the initial FIS model, we
remaining 25% for model validation (referred to as check- computed the training root mean square error. We then
ing set-2). Fig.4(a) and (b) are plots of the fuzzy training tested the model using the checking set-1 and we com-
inputs and output. puted the checking root mean square error. Fig.5 is plot
of the initial model output against checking set-1.
After observing the model performance in Fig.5 we
performed the first optimization experiment using 20
training epochs (steps) with an error target of 0 and an
initial step size of 0.1. Fig.5 is the plot of the initial trained
model output against the checking set-1.
From Fig.6 we can see that the model has improved a
lot with respect to the checking set-1. To test the model
for overfitting, we trained the model again using 200
epochs and applied checking set-2. We used 200 epochs in
Fig. 4. (a) Plot of fuzzy inputs; (b) Plot of fuzzy outputs testing for overfitting based on our observations through
 A Neuro-Fuzzy Crime Prediction Model Based on Video Analysis
empirical experiments. Fig.7 is the plot of the improved
model output against the checking set-2.
Fig. 5. Plot of the initial model output against checking set-1
Fig. 6. Model output against checking set-1 after training
with 20 epochs
Fig. 7. Testing for over-fitting
From the Fig.7 it can be observed that there is no
overfitting since the model performs well with the check-
ing set-2. That means the FIS is able to generalize and
can therefore be used to make predictions about different
data. Fig.8(a) and (b) plot of the training and checking
errors respectively for each step of the 200 epochs.
973
Fig. 8. Error plots. (a) Training; (b) Checking
From Fig.8(a) we can see that the lowest training error
0.3116 occurs around the 30th epoch point, after which
it becomes steady throughout the rest of the training.
Fig.8(b) is the plot of the checking error and the low-
est checking error 2.4607 occurs at the 180th epoch, after
which it assumes a slightly fluctuating amplitude till it
gets to the 200th epoch point. It can also be observed
that there have been great improvements with the check-
ing error because the initial checking error was 119.7854
which have been reduced to 2.4608. Hence the plot indi-
cates that the model has the ability to generalize over the
checking data and for that matter it can be used to make
predictions about different data. Fig.9 is the Crime pre-
diction fuzzy inference system (CPFIS) generated after
subtractive clustering.
Fig. 9. Crime prediction fuzzy inference system (CPFIS)
structure
CPFIS is a Sugeno-type inference system with 7 in-
puts, 32 rules and 1 output. The system uses a gaussian
membership function for all the inputs variables and a
linear membership function for the output variable.
Fig.10(a) to Fig.10(e) are surface plots of CPFIS show-
ing the functional relationship between crime likelihood
(on the y-axis), time of incident (on the x-axis) and four
other variables (on the x-axis). The plots are created on
x-axis and y-axis grid lines using 101 plot points.
Fig.10(a) is the output surface of arms threat and time
of incident. From the figure there is a high likelihood of
crime from the 15th to 24th hour marks with correspond-
ing arms threat counts of 2 to 6. From Fig.10(b) crime
likelihood tend to be highest between the 5th to 15th hour
marks with corresponding traffic violation counts of 2 to
4. But then slightly subsides with increasing counts of
traffic violations. From Fig.10(c) crime likelihood is high
between the 10th to 15th hour marks with corresponding
physical struggle incidents of 2 to 4 but highest between
the 15th to 20th hour marks with corresponding physical
974 Chinese Journal of Electronics
struggle incidents of 4 to 6. Fig.10(d) tend to assume a
pattern of Fig.10(c).
Fig. 10. Surface plots of CPFIS
5. Model testing
To test the modeled CPFIS, 800 sampled clips from
UCR-Videoweb dataset were hosted on our designed
surveillance network in Fig.2. 100 designated grid blocks
were covered in the deployment. The sample clips all had
at least 60 tracks each and the tracks sequentially geo-
referenced to mini-grids within the designated grids. On
the whole each mini-grid within the designated network
coverage area has at least 120 tracks geo-referenced to it.
In the experiment, video analysis is first performed to ob-
tain crime indicators (fuzzy inputs) after which we used
CIFIS to compute the crime likelihood for the grid blocks.
Fig.11 is a map showing the descriptive statistics of crime
likelihood counts across the network area. To obtain a
surface visualization of the crime likelihood estimations
across the network coverage area density estimates were
computed for all the grid blocks. Fig.12 is the results of
the kernel density estimations.
Fig. 11. Descriptive map of crime likelihood using UCR dataset
From the Fig.11, the blue bars represent the crime
likelihood intensity at various locations of the network
coverage. A cut-off threshold is set at 5 to display the
2018
statistics of areas with high crime likelihood.
Fig.12 is a smooth representation of the crime likeli-
hood estimates as a continuous surface. The darkest spots
are the areas of high crime likelihood under our surveil-
lance area.These darkest regions can be used a guide
to direct attention of law enforcement officer to areas
of importance in real time to avert or deter potential
crimes.Besides that, the kernel desity map of crime like-
lihood estimations can also be used to assess or give a
visual impression of how policing tactics are impacting
the crime atmosphere in an area under surveillance.
Fig. 12. KDE map of crime likelihood across the network area
V. Conclusions
The paper presented a neuro-fuzzy based model for
computing crime likelihood under a wide area surveillance
network. The approach deploys subtractive clustering for
modeling the fuzzy inference system structure as well as
extracting the initial fuzzy rules from the training data.
The model has great implications for predictive policing
and it can be used to develop applications such as: situa-
tion awareness system, crime early warning system, crime
hotspot monitoring system, police patrol decision sup-
port system and many others. The model is theoretically
grounded on activity routine theory, crime pattern theory
and rational choice theory. As such any system developed
based on this model will work best in predicting crimes
that fall under these theories.
To test the feasibility of the approach we modeled
a crime predictive fuzzy inference system using sampled
VSD 2014 dataset and we tested the model on UCR-
Videoweb dataset. The datasets were hosted in simulated
wide area surveillance network and the fuzzy inputs and
output were extracted from the hosted datasets. The mod-
eled system was adaptively tuned using a combination of
gradient descent and least mean square estimation over
several training epochs and system showed low training
and checking errors of 0.3116 and 2.4608 respectively.
More importantly, the modeled system did not show over-
fitting as it was able to generalize over different datasets.
Besides that, it was also able to detect crime likelihood
 A Neuro-Fuzzy Crime Prediction Model Based on Video Analysis
regions across the simulated surveillance area as shown by
the darkest spots in the KDE map. On the whole we can
say the experiments were demonstrative and going for-
ward we intend to use the model as bases for researching
into crime hotspot analysis and hotspot monitoring.
References
[1] L.E. Ċohen and M. Felson, “Social change and crime rate trends:
A routine activity approach”, American Sociological Review,
Vol.44, No.4, pp.588–608, 1979.
[2] H. Li, S. Liu and H. Wang, “Separation of objects with unclear
edges from the nonuniform background”, Chinese Journal of
Electronics, Vol.20, No.1, pp.85–90, 2011.
[3] M.A. Tayebi, U. Glasser and P.L. Brantingham, “Learning
where to inspect: Location learning for crime prediction”, IEEE
International Conference on Intelligence and Security Infor-
matics, Baltimore, MD, USA, pp.25–30, 2015.
[4] X. Song, L. Sun, J. Lei, et al., “Event-based large scale surveil-
lance video summarization”, Neurocomputing, Vol.187, Part.C,
pp.66–74, 2016.
[5] I. Hamid and S. Mubarak, “Recognizing complex events using
large margin joint low-level event model”, Izadinia, Hamid and
Shah, Mubarak, Vol.7575, No.1, pp.430–444, 2012.
[6] E.B. Zare, A. Dehghan, M. Piccardi, et al., “Complex event
recognition by latent temporal models of concepts”, IEEE In-
ternational Conference on Image Processing, CNIT La Defense,
Paris, France, pp.2373–2377, 2014.
[7] M.A. Shayan, R.Z. Amir and S. Mubarak, “Video classification
using semantic concept co-occurrences”, The IEEE Conference
on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Columbus, Ohio,
USA, pp.2529–2536, 2014.
[8] B. Zou, N. Mohammed, C. Zhu, et al., “Crime hotspot detec-
tion and monitoring using video based event modeling and map-
ping techniques”, International Journal of Computational In-
telligence Systems, Vol.10, No.1, pp.962, 2017.
[9] W. Li, Y. Bi, X. Zhu, et al., “Hybrid swarm intelligent parallel
algorithm research based on multi-core clusters”, Microproces-
sors and Microsystems, Vol.47, Part.A, pp.151–160, 2016.
[10] J.R. Jang, “ANFIS: Adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference
systems”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyber-
netics, Vol.23, No.3, pp.665–685, 1993.
[11] H.R. Bherenji and P. Khedkar, “Learning and tuning fuzzy
logic controllers through reinforcements”, IEEE Transactions
on Neural Networks, Vol.3, No.5, pp.724–740, 1992.
[12] D. Nauck and R. Kruse, “Neuro-fuzzy systems for function ap-
proximation”, Journal Fuzzy Sets and Systems-Special Issue on
Analytical and Structural Considerations in Fuzzy Modeling,
Vol.101, No.2, pp.261–271, 1999.
[13] S. Chiu, “Fuzzy model identification based on cluster estima-
tion”, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, Vol.2, No.3,
pp.267–268, 1994.
View publication stats
975
[14] R. Yager and D. Filev, “Generation of fuzzy rules by moun-
tain clustering”, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy, Vol.2, No.3,
pp.207–219, 1994.
[15] Y. Yuan, X. Song, H. Sahbi, et al., “Spatio-temporal interest
points chain (STIPC) for activity recognition”, Asian Confer-
ence on Pattern Recognition, pp.22–26, 2011.
[16] L.A. Umit and Y. Adnan, “An improved BOW approach us-
ing fuzzy feature encoding and visual-word weighting”, IEEE
International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, Istanbul, Turkey,
pp.1–5, 2015.
[17] C. Ding, A. Kamal, G. Denina, et al., “Videoweb activi-
ties dataset, ICPR contest on semantic description of hu-
man activities (SDHA), http://cvrc.ece.utexas.edu/SDHA2010/
Wide Area Activity.html, 2016-12-28.
[18] M. Sjoberg, B. Ionescu, V.L. Quang, et al., “The Medi-
aEval 2014 affect task: Violent scenes detection”, Working
Notes Proceedings of the MediaEval 2014 Workshop, Barcelona,
Catalunya, Spain, 2014.
ZOU Beiji received M.E. degree in
Tsinghua University in 1984, and Ph.D. de-
gree in Hunan University in 2001. He is cur-
rently a full professor in the School of Infor-
mation Science and Engineering of Central
South University. His research interests in-
clude computer vision and image process-
ing. (Email: bjzou@csu.edu.cn)
Nurudeen Mohammed obtained
his bachelor degree in mathematical science
from University for Development Studies
in 2008 Ghana. Then his M.S. degree and
Ph.D. degree both in computer applica-
tion technology from the School of Infor-
mation Science and Engineering, Central
South University, China in 2013 and 2017
respectively. His current research interest
includes computer vision, data mining and
machine learning. He is currently working as a quality assurance
specialist with Huawei Technologies Ghana.
ZHU Chengzhang (correspond-
ing author) received her M.E. degree
in computer science and education from
Huazhong University of Science and Tech-
nology, Wuhan, in 2006 and her Ph.D. de-
gree in control science and engineering from
School of Information Science and Engi-
neering, Central South University, Chang-
sha, in 2016. Currently, she is a faculty of
the College of Literature and Journalism,
Central South University, Changsha. Her research interests include
medical image processing, computer vision and pattern recognition.
(Email: anandawork@126.com)