Visual Object Tracking Performance Measures Revisited

The problem of visual tracking evaluation is sporting a large variety of performance measures, and largely suffers from lack of consensus about which measures should be used in experiments. This makes the cross-paper tracker comparison difficult. Furthermore, as some measures may be less effective t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:IEEE transactions on image processing : a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society. - 1992. - 25(2016), 3 vom: 01. März, Seite 1261-74
1. Verfasser: Čehovin, Luka (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Leonardis, Aleš, Kristan, Matej
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2016
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:IEEE transactions on image processing : a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society
Schlagworte:Journal Article
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The problem of visual tracking evaluation is sporting a large variety of performance measures, and largely suffers from lack of consensus about which measures should be used in experiments. This makes the cross-paper tracker comparison difficult. Furthermore, as some measures may be less effective than others, the tracking results may be skewed or biased toward particular tracking aspects. In this paper, we revisit the popular performance measures and tracker performance visualizations and analyze them theoretically and experimentally. We show that several measures are equivalent from the point of information they provide for tracker comparison and, crucially, that some are more brittle than the others. Based on our analysis, we narrow down the set of potential measures to only two complementary ones, describing accuracy and robustness, thus pushing toward homogenization of the tracker evaluation methodology. These two measures can be intuitively interpreted and visualized and have been employed by the recent visual object tracking challenges as the foundation for the evaluation methodology
Beschreibung:Date Completed 01.07.2016
Date Revised 30.06.2016
published: Print
Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE
ISSN:1941-0042