MOT16 Results

Click on a measure to sort the table accordingly. See below for a more detailed description.


Showing only entries that use public detections!

TrackerAvg RankMOTAMOTP FAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
DP_NMS
1. using public detections
24.4
32.2
±9.8
76.40.25.4% 62.1% 1,123121,579972 (29.2)944 (28.3)212.6Public
H. Pirsiavash, D. Ramanan, C. Fowlkes. Globally-Optimal Greedy Algorithms for Tracking a Variable Number of Objects. In CVPR, 2011.
ERCTracker
2. online method using public detections
24.6
32.3
±9.4
76.40.25.7% 62.1% 1,193121,333953 (28.5)943 (28.2)32.0Public
Anonymous submission
CMRZF
3. using public detections
25.9
30.4
±10.8
77.80.22.9% 70.5% 1,421124,4831,030 (32.5)733 (23.1)16.9Public
Anonymous submission
rookie_ksp
4. using public detections
32.1
24.8
±7.7
76.40.22.4% 66.1% 1,421132,3613,343 (122.0)4,886 (178.3)19.7Public
Anonymous submission
MDPNN16
5. online method using public detections
18.2
47.2
±7.7
75.80.514.0% 41.6% 2,68192,856774 (15.8)1,675 (34.1)1.0Public
A. Sadeghian, A. Alahi, S. Savarese. Tracking The Untrackable: Learning To Track Multiple Cues with Long-Term Dependencies. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.01909, 2017.
JCmin_MOT
6. online method using public detections
22.3
36.7
±9.1
75.90.57.5% 54.4% 2,936111,890667 (17.3)831 (21.5)14.8Public
Joint Cost Minimization for Multi-Object Tracking
PAOT
7. online method using public detections
28.0
31.5
±9.0
77.30.54.3% 59.9% 3,048120,2781,587 (46.6)2,239 (65.8)687.1Public
Thesis available in August 2017
JPDA_m
8. using public detections
24.1
26.2
±6.1
76.30.64.1% 67.5% 3,689130,549365 (12.9)638 (22.5)22.2Public
H. Rezatofighi, A. Milan, Z. Zhang, Q. Shi, A. Dick, I. Reid. Joint Probabilistic Data Association Revisited. In ICCV, 2015.
GM_PHD_N1T
9. online method using public detections
30.6
31.6
±8.6
76.60.85.5% 55.2% 4,767115,6454,348 (118.9)3,986 (109.0)9.9Public
Anonymous submission
GMPHD_AM
10. online method using public detections
31.4
30.6
±6.7
74.80.85.9% 53.1% 4,982120,698930 (27.5)1,856 (54.9)7.9Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAMOTP FAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
LP2D
11. using public detections
23.9
35.7
±10.1
75.80.98.7% 50.7% 5,084111,163915 (23.4)1,264 (32.4)49.3Public
MOT baseline: Linear programming on 2D image coordinates.
GMPHD_HDA
12. online method using public detections
26.6
30.5
±6.9
75.40.94.6% 59.7% 5,169120,970539 (16.0)731 (21.7)13.6Public
Y. Song, M. Jeon. Online Multiple Object Tracking with the Hierarchically Adopted GM-PHD Filter using Motion and Appearance. In IEEE/IEIE The International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE) Asia, 2016.
DQNTracker
13. online method using public detections
31.9
33.7
±13.7
75.40.96.9% 59.3% 5,210113,8651,744 (46.4)4,184 (111.4)9.9Public
Anonymous submission
HCC
14. using public detections
9.4
49.3
±10.2
79.00.917.8% 39.9% 5,33386,795391 (7.5)535 (10.2)0.8Public
Anonymous submission
DeepAC
15. online method using public detections
28.1
38.8
±9.3
74.90.99.1% 42.8% 5,444103,1742,886 (66.5)6,592 (151.9)21.1Public
Anonymous submission
TBD
16. using public detections
30.8
33.7
±9.2
76.51.07.2% 54.2% 5,804112,5872,418 (63.2)2,252 (58.9)1.3Public
A. Geiger, M. Lauer, C. Wojek, C. Stiller, R. Urtasun. 3D Traffic Scene Understanding from Movable Platforms. In Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), 2014.
NLLMPa
17. using public detections
11.8
47.6
±10.6
78.51.017.0% 40.4% 5,84489,093629 (12.3)768 (15.0)8.3Public
E. Levinkov, J. Uhrig, S. Tang, M. Omran, E. Insafutdinov, A. Kirillov, C. Rother, T. Brox, B. Schiele, B. Andres. Joint Graph Decomposition and Node Labeling: Problem, Algorithms, Applications. In CVPR, 2017.
LKDeep
18. online method using public detections
33.6
31.8
±19.3
74.81.06.2% 53.5% 6,179115,8012,389 (65.5)5,745 (157.5)32.0Public
Anonymous submission
JMC
19. using public detections
18.1
46.3
±9.0
75.71.115.5% 39.7% 6,37390,914657 (13.1)1,114 (22.2)0.8Public
S. Tang, B. Andres, M. Andriluka, B. Schiele. Multi-Person Tracking by Multicuts and Deep Matching. In BMTT, 2016.
QuadMOT16
20. using public detections
20.3
44.1
±9.4
76.41.114.6% 44.9% 6,38894,775745 (15.5)1,096 (22.8)1.8Public
J. Son, M. Baek, M. Cho, B. Han. Multi-Object Tracking with Quadruplet Convolutional Neural Networks. In CVPR, 2017.
TrackerAvg RankMOTAMOTP FAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
MHT_DAM
21. using public detections
17.3
45.8
±8.9
76.31.116.2% 43.2% 6,41291,758590 (11.9)781 (15.7)0.8Public
C. Kim, F. Li, A. Ciptadi, J. Rehg. Multiple Hypothesis Tracking Revisited. In ICCV, 2015.
CDA_DDALv2
22. online method using public detections
27.4
43.9
±7.8
74.71.110.7% 44.4% 6,45095,175676 (14.1)1,795 (37.6)0.5Public
S. Bae and K. Yoon, Confidence-Based Data Association and Discriminative Deep Appearance Learning for Robust Online Multi-Object Tracking, In IEEE TPAMI, 2017.
oICF
23. online method using public detections
26.9
43.2
±10.2
74.31.111.3% 48.5% 6,65196,515381 (8.1)1,404 (29.8)0.4Public
H. Kieritz, S. Becker, W. Hübner, M. Arens. Online Multi-Person Tracking using Integral Channel Features. In IEEE Advanced Video and Signal-based Surveillance (AVSS) 2016, 2016.
LMP
24. using public detections
12.2
48.8
±9.8
79.01.118.2% 40.1% 6,65486,245481 (9.1)595 (11.3)0.5Public
S. Tang, M. Andriluka, B. Andres, B. Schiele. Multiple People Tracking with Lifted Multicut and Person Re-identification. In CVPR, 2017.
MCjoint
25. using public detections
16.1
47.1
±10.8
76.31.120.4% 46.9% 6,70389,368370 (7.3)598 (11.7)0.6Public
M. Keuper, S. Tang, Z. Yu, B. Andres, T. Brox, B. Schiele. A Multi-cut Formulation for Joint Segmentation and Tracking of Multiple Objects. In CoRR, 2016.
CEM
26. using public detections
29.3
33.2
±7.9
75.81.27.8% 54.4% 6,837114,322642 (17.2)731 (19.6)0.3Public
A. Milan, S. Roth, K. Schindler. Continuous Energy Minimization for Multitarget Tracking. In IEEE TPAMI, 2014.
RAR16pub
27. online method using public detections
24.0
45.9
±9.7
74.81.213.2% 41.9% 6,87191,173648 (13.0)1,992 (39.8)0.9Public
Anonymous ICCV submission
deep_sort
28. online method using public detections
26.4
35.3
±8.8
76.21.38.2% 52.8% 7,750109,563602 (15.1)1,446 (36.2)14.8Public
Anonymous submission
LINF1
29. using public detections
25.3
41.0
±9.5
74.81.311.6% 51.3% 7,89699,224430 (9.4)963 (21.1)4.2Public
L. Fagot-Bouquet, R. Audigier, Y. Dhome, F. Lerasle. Improving Multi-Frame Data Association with Sparse Representations for Robust Near-Online Multi-Object Tracking. In ECCV, 2016.
SLT
30. online method using public detections
27.4
41.5
±10.4
75.31.411.7% 37.0% 8,07496,9561,705 (36.4)3,170 (67.7)9.6Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAMOTP FAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
JCSTD
31. online method using public detections
24.1
47.4
±8.3
74.41.414.4% 36.4% 8,07786,6311,266 (24.1)2,696 (51.4)3.3Public
Anonymous submission
PTBFPT
32. using public detections
36.6
10.5
±6.4
66.71.40.1% 90.0% 8,106154,754303 (20.0)293 (19.4)0.0Public
Anonymous submission
EAMTT_pub
33. online method using public detections
30.8
38.8
±8.5
75.11.47.9% 49.1% 8,114102,452965 (22.0)1,657 (37.8)11.8Public
R. Sanchez-Matilla, F. Poiesi, A. Cavallaro "Multi-target tracking with strong and weak detections" in BMTT ECCVw 2016
EAGS16
34. using public detections
15.4
47.4
±10.4
75.91.417.3% 42.7% 8,36986,931575 (11.0)913 (17.5)197.3Public
#MM-007925 Enhancing Association Graph with Super-voxel for Multi-target Tracking
FWT
35. using public detections
20.7
47.8
±9.4
75.51.519.1% 38.2% 8,88685,487852 (16.0)1,534 (28.9)0.6Public
R. Henschel, L. Leal-Taixé, D. Cremers, B. Rosenhahn. Improvements to Frank-Wolfe optimization for multi-detector multi-object tracking. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08314, 2017.
NOMT
36. using public detections
14.5
46.4
±9.9
76.61.618.3% 41.4% 9,75387,565359 (6.9)504 (9.7)2.6Public
W. Choi. Near-Online Multi-target Tracking with Aggregated Local Flow Descriptor. In ICCV, 2015.
HAF16
37. using public detections
21.8
45.7
±8.9
76.01.715.4% 41.4% 10,03888,319660 (12.8)985 (19.1)0.7Public
Anonymous submission
oBot
38. online method using public detections
28.0
42.5
±20.4
75.21.812.6% 40.7% 10,42092,8921,559 (31.8)1,639 (33.4)2.3Public
Anonymous BMVC submission
EDMT
39. using public detections
20.2
45.3
±9.1
75.91.917.0% 39.9% 11,12287,890639 (12.3)946 (18.3)1.8Public
Anonymous submission
OVBT
40. online method using public detections
35.6
38.4
±8.8
75.41.97.5% 47.3% 11,51799,4631,321 (29.1)2,140 (47.1)0.3Public
Y. Ban, S. Ba, X. Alameda-Pineda, R. Horaud. Tracking Multiple Persons Based on a Variational Bayesian Model. In BMTT 2016, .
TrackerAvg RankMOTAMOTP FAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
LTTSC-CRF
41. using public detections
29.9
37.6
±9.9
75.92.09.6% 55.2% 11,969101,343481 (10.8)1,012 (22.8)0.6Public
N. Le, A. Heili, M. Odobez. Long-Term Time-Sensitive Costs for CRF-Based Tracking by Detection. In ECCVw, 2016.
PT_JMC
42. using public detections
23.0
45.2
±8.4
74.82.117.7% 38.3% 12,20487,081681 (13.0)1,152 (22.1)3.8Public
Anonymous submission
NHL
43. using public detections
29.5
45.1
±8.5
72.52.115.9% 37.3% 12,60585,6911,747 (33.0)2,033 (38.4)0.3Public
Anonymous submission
TSSRC
44. online method using public detections
23.6
42.4
±11.8
76.82.512.8% 44.9% 14,68589,654739 (14.5)1,368 (26.9)16.8Public
Anonymous submission
MOT_M_hun
45. using public detections
25.5
39.0
±10.3
75.52.613.7% 40.1% 15,34595,029843 (17.6)1,790 (37.4)5,919.0Public
Anonymous submission
PRMOT
46. using public detections
26.6
38.4
±8.9
75.42.712.4% 47.3% 15,76495,796741 (15.6)885 (18.6)2,959.5Public
Anonymous submission
GMCSS
47. online method using public detections
35.2
38.3
±9.0
74.32.89.4% 46.6% 16,49195,303735 (15.4)2,122 (44.5)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
EMOT
48. online method using public detections
32.1
35.7
±7.9
73.42.811.6% 43.7% 16,56699,794826 (18.2)2,123 (46.9)5,919.0Public
Anonymous submission
SMOT
49. using public detections
43.0
29.7
±7.3
75.22.95.3% 47.7% 17,426107,5523,108 (75.8)4,483 (109.3)0.2Public
C. Dicle, O. Camps, M. Sznaier. The Way They Move: Tracking Targets with Similar Appearance. In ICCV, 2013.
tMOT
50. online method using public detections
30.5
34.5
±7.6
74.54.313.0% 42.4% 25,20493,462804 (16.5)1,271 (26.1)11.8Public
Anonymous submission

Due to a minor bug in the export script, all results were re-evaluated on April 11, 2016. Here is the old snapshot of the leaderboard.


Benchmark Statistics

SequencesFramesTrajectoriesBoxes
75919759182326

Difficulty Analysis

Sequence difficulty (from easiest to hardest, measured by average MOTA)

MOT16-03

MOT16-03

(52.1% MOTA)

MOT16-06

MOT16-06

(43.2% MOTA)

MOT16-07

MOT16-07

(38.5% MOTA)

...

...

MOT16-08

MOT16-08

(29.1% MOTA)

MOT16-14

MOT16-14

(24.0% MOTA)


Evaluation Measures

Lower is better. Higher is better.
Measure Better Perfect Description
Avg Rank lower 1 This is the rank of each tracker averaged over all present evaluation measures.
MOTA higher 100 % Multiple Object Tracking Accuracy [1]. This measure combines three error sources: false positives, missed targets and identity switches.
MOTP higher 100 % Multiple Object Tracking Precision [1]. The misalignment between the annotated and the predicted bounding boxes.
FAF lower 0 The average number of false alarms per frame.
MT higher 100 % Mostly tracked targets. The ratio of ground-truth trajectories that are covered by a track hypothesis for at least 80% of their respective life span.
ML lower 0 % Mostly lost targets. The ratio of ground-truth trajectories that are covered by a track hypothesis for at most 20% of their respective life span.
FP lower 0 The total number of false positives.
FN lower 0 The total number of false negatives (missed targets).
ID Sw. lower 0 The total number of identity switches. Please note that we follow the stricter definition of identity switches as described in [2].
Frag lower 0 The total number of times a trajectory is fragmented (i.e. interrupted during tracking).
Hz higher Inf. Processing speed (in frames per second excluding the detector) on the benchmark.

Legend

Symbol Description
online method This is an online (causal) method, i.e. the solution is immediately available with each incoming frame and cannot be changed at any later time.
using public detections This method used the provided detection set as input.
new This entry has been submitted or updated less than a week ago.

References:


[1] Bernardin, K. & Stiefelhagen, R. Evaluating Multiple Object Tracking Performance: The CLEAR MOT Metrics. Image and Video Processing, 2008(1):1-10, 2008.
[2] Li, Y., Huang, C. & Nevatia, R. Learning to associate: HybridBoosted multi-target tracker for crowded scene. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2009.