4.7 Article

Greedy Batch-Based Minimum-Cost Flows for Tracking Multiple Objects

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING
Volume 26, Issue 10, Pages 4765-4776

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2017.2723239

Keywords

Multi-object tracking; minimum-cost flows; batch processing; graph transformation

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [61573352, 61403375, 61472119]
  3. Australian Research Council [FT-130101457, DP-140102164, LP-150100671]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Minimum-cost flow algorithms have recently achieved state-of-the-art results in multi-object tracking. However, they rely on the whole image sequence as input. When deployed in real-time applications or in distributed settings, these algorithms first operate on short batches of frames and then stitch the results into full trajectories. This decoupled strategy is prone to errors because the batch-based tracking errors may propagate to the final trajectories and cannot be corrected by other batches. In this paper, we propose a greedy batch-based minimum-cost flow approach for tracking multiple objects. Unlike existing approaches that conduct batch-based tracking and stitching sequentially, we optimize consecutive batches jointly so that the tracking results on one batch may benefit the results on the other. Specifically, we apply a generalized minimum-cost flows (MCF) algorithm on each batch and generate a set of conflicting trajectories. These trajectories comprise the ones with high probabilities, but also those with low probabilities potentially missed by detectors and trackers. We then apply the generalized MCF again to obtain the optimal matching between trajectories from consecutive batches. Our proposed approach is simple, effective, and does not require training. We demonstrate the power of our approach on data sets of different scenarios.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available