4.8 Article

A Novel Performance Evaluation Methodology for Single-Target Trackers

Journal

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.2016.2516982

Keywords

Performance analysis; single-target tracking; model-free tracking; tracker evaluation methodology; tracker evaluation datasets; tracker evaluation system

Funding

  1. Slovenian research agency [P2-0095, P2-0214, J2-4284, J2-3607]
  2. EU project EPiCS [257906]
  3. CTU Project [SGS15/155/OHK3/2T/13]
  4. Czech Science Foundation [GACR P103/12/G084]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper addresses the problem of single-target tracker performance evaluation. We consider the performance measures, the dataset and the evaluation system to be the most important components of tracker evaluation and propose requirements for each of them. The requirements are the basis of a new evaluation methodology that aims at a simple and easily interpretable tracker comparison. The ranking-based methodology addresses tracker equivalence in terms of statistical significance and practical differences. A fully-annotated dataset with per-frame annotations with several visual attributes is introduced. The diversity of its visual properties is maximized in a novel way by clustering a large number of videos according to their visual attributes. This makes it the most sophistically constructed and annotated dataset to date. A multi-platform evaluation system allowing easy integration of third-party trackers is presented as well. The proposed evaluation methodology was tested on the VOT2014 challenge on the new dataset and 38 trackers, making it the largest benchmark to date. Most of the tested trackers are indeed state-of-the-art since they outperform the standard baselines, resulting in a highly-challenging benchmark. An exhaustive analysis of the dataset from the perspective of tracking difficulty is carried out. To facilitate tracker comparison a new performance visualization technique is proposed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available