IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0203188.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visual object tracking challenges revisited: VOT vs. OTB

Author

Listed:
  • Sun Bei
  • Zuo Zhen
  • Luo Wusheng
  • Du Liebo
  • Lu Qin

Abstract

Numerous benchmark datasets and evaluation toolkits have been designed to facilitate visual object tracking evaluation. However, it is not clear which evaluation protocols are preferred for different tracking objectives. Even worse, different evaluation protocols sometimes yield contradictory conclusions, further hampering reliable evaluation. Therefore, we 1) introduce the new concept of mirror tracking to measure the robustness of a tracker and identify its over-fitting scenarios; 2) measure the robustness of the evaluation ranks produced by different evaluation protocols; and 3) report a detailed analysis of milestone tracking challenges, indicating their application scenarios. Our experiments are based on two state-of-the-art challenges, namely, OTB and VOT, using the same trackers and datasets. Based on the experiments, we conclude that 1) the proposed mirror tracking metrics can identify the over-fitting scenarios of a tracker, 2) the ranks produced by OTB are more robust than those produced by VOT, and 3) the joint ranks produced by OTB and VOT can be used to measure failure recovery.

Suggested Citation

  • Sun Bei & Zuo Zhen & Luo Wusheng & Du Liebo & Lu Qin, 2018. "Visual object tracking challenges revisited: VOT vs. OTB," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203188
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203188
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203188&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0203188?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.