<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Benchmarking on ViCoS Lab</title>
    <link>/tags/benchmarking/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Benchmarking on ViCoS Lab</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <atom:link href="/tags/benchmarking/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>A Novel Performance Evaluation Methodology for Single-Target Trackers</title>
      <link>/publications/kristan2016a/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>/publications/kristan2016a/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Beyond standard benchmarks: Parameterizing performance evaluation in visual object tracking</title>
      <link>/publications/cehovin2017beyond/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>/publications/cehovin2017beyond/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Object-to-camera motion produces a variety of apparent motion patterns that significantly affect performance of short-term visual trackers. Despite being crucial for designing robust trackers, their influence is poorly explored in standard benchmarks due to weakly defined, biased and overlapping attribute annotations. In this paper we propose to go beyond pre-recorded benchmarks with post-hoc annotations by presenting an approach that utilizes omnidirectional videos to generate realistic, consistently annotated, short-term tracking scenarios with exactly parameterized motion patterns. We have created an evaluation system, constructed a fully annotated dataset of omnidirectional videos and generators for typical motion patterns. We provide an in-depth analysis of major tracking paradigms which is complementary to the standard benchmarks and confirms the expressiveness of our evaluation approach.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Visual object tracking performance measures revisited</title>
      <link>/publications/cehovin2016visual/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>/publications/cehovin2016visual/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;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 towards 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 towards 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 (VOT) challenges as the foundation for the evaluation methodology.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
