4.7 Article

Robust Discriminative Tracking via Landmark-Based Label Propagation

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 1510-1523

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2015.2405479

关键词

Visual tracking; label propagation; appearance changes; Laplacian regularizer

资金

  1. 973 Program of China [2012CB720000]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [61203291]
  3. Beijing Municipal Education Commission
  4. Ministry of Education [M4011272.040]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The appearance of an object could be continuously changing during tracking, thereby being not independent identically distributed. A good discriminative tracker often needs a large number of training samples to fit the underlying data distribution, which is impractical for visual tracking. In this paper, we present a new discriminative tracker via landmark-based label propagation (LLP) that is nonparametric and makes no specific assumption about the sample distribution. With an undirected graph representation of samples, the LLP locally approximates the soft label of each sample by a linear combination of labels on its nearby landmarks. It is able to effectively propagate a limited amount of initial labels to a large amount of unlabeled samples. To this end, we introduce a local landmarks approximation method to compute the cross-similarity matrix between the whole data and landmarks. Moreover, a soft label prediction function incorporating the graph Laplacian regularizer is used to diffuse the known labels to all the unlabeled vertices in the graph, which explicitly considers the local geometrical structure of all samples. Tracking is then carried out within a Bayesian inference framework, where the soft label prediction value is used to construct the observation model. Both qualitative and quantitative evaluations on the benchmark data set containing 51 challenging image sequences demonstrate that the proposed algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据