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 RankMOTAMOTPFAFMTML FPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
DP_NMS
1. using public detections
20.7
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.
LRIM
2. online method using public detections
25.1
30.9
±15.8
76.10.45.4% 54.9% 2,375119,4804,075 (118.2)5,484 (159.1)10.0Public
Anonymous submission
MDPNN16
3. online method using public detections
14.8
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
4. online method using public detections
19.4
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
JPDA_m
5. using public detections
19.5
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.
GMPHD_AM
6. online method using public detections
26.2
30.4
±6.7
74.80.85.3% 54.3% 4,721121,272855 (25.5)1,795 (53.6)7.9Public
Anonymous submission
LP2D
7. using public detections
20.5
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
8. online method using public detections
22.3
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
9. online method using public detections
26.1
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
10. using public detections
7.4
49.3
±10.2
79.00.917.8% 39.9% 5,33386,795391 (7.5)535 (10.2)0.8Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAMOTPFAFMTML FPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
DeepAC
11. online method using public detections
22.7
38.8
±9.3
74.90.99.1% 42.8% 5,444103,1742,886 (66.5)6,592 (151.9)21.1Public
Anonymous submission
MHT_DAM
12. using public detections
15.5
42.9
±8.9
76.61.013.6% 46.9% 5,66897,919499 (10.8)659 (14.2)0.8Public
C. Kim, F. Li, A. Ciptadi, J. Rehg. Multiple Hypothesis Tracking Revisited. In ICCV, 2015.
TBD
13. using public detections
25.8
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
14. using public detections
10.1
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.
DSR
15. using public detections
16.8
42.8
±8.8
77.61.112.8% 45.8% 6,37297,214688 (14.7)756 (16.2)1.4Public
Anonymous submission
JMC
16. using public detections
15.3
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
17. using public detections
16.8
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.
CDA_DDALv2
18. online method using public detections
22.6
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
19. online method using public detections
22.8
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
20. using public detections
10.4
48.8
±9.8
79.01.118.2% 40.1% 6,65486,245481 (9.1)595 (11.3)0.5Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAMOTPFAFMTML FPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
MCjoint
21. using public detections
13.3
47.1
±10.8
76.31.120.4% 46.9% 6,70389,368370 (7.3)598 (11.7)0.6Public
Anonymous submission
CEM
22. using public detections
25.8
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
23. online method using public detections
20.3
45.9
±9.7
74.81.213.2% 41.9% 6,87191,173648 (13.0)1,992 (39.8)0.9Public
Anonymous submission
DACTracker
24. online method using public detections
27.0
38.2
±9.5
74.81.28.4% 45.8% 7,079103,3942,228 (51.5)5,969 (137.9)9.9Public
Anonymous submission
MLMRF_DL61
25. online method using public detections
14.5
48.4
±9.4
74.31.318.2% 39.5% 7,84985,719491 (9.3)873 (16.5)3.0Public
Anonymous submission
LINF1
26. using public detections
22.2
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.
HAF16
27. using public detections new
17.5
43.3
±8.9
76.41.414.9% 45.7% 8,05894,879490 (10.2)696 (14.5)0.7Public
Anonymous submission
PTBFPT
28. using public detections
30.4
10.5
±6.4
66.71.40.1% 90.0% 8,106154,754303 (20.0)293 (19.4)0.0Public
Anonymous submission
EAMTT_pub
29. online method using public detections
26.0
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
SMMUML
30. using public detections
22.3
43.3
±13.6
74.31.411.9% 42.8% 8,46393,892985 (20.3)1,509 (31.1)182.7Public
Accepted in IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Big Data, 2017. Paper ID: 81.
TrackerAvg RankMOTAMOTPFAFMTML FPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
FWT
31. using public detections
26.1
42.3
±9.0
74.51.414.1% 40.4% 8,48195,6431,032 (21.7)2,612 (54.9)0.6Public
Anonymous submission
NOMT
32. using public detections
11.9
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.
EDMT
33. using public detections
16.8
45.3
±9.1
75.91.917.0% 39.9% 11,12287,890639 (12.3)946 (18.3)1.8Public
Anonymous submission
OVBT
34. online method using public detections
30.5
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, .
LTTSC-CRF
35. using public detections
25.9
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
36. using public detections
19.1
45.2
±8.4
74.82.117.7% 38.3% 12,20487,081681 (13.0)1,152 (22.1)3.8Public
Anonymous submission
YGT
37. using public detections
18.9
44.7
±9.0
75.22.118.6% 46.5% 12,49187,855404 (7.8)709 (13.7)0.6Public
Anonymous submission
NHL
38. using public detections
24.6
45.1
±8.5
72.52.115.9% 37.3% 12,60585,6911,747 (33.0)2,033 (38.4)0.3Public
Anonymous submission
GMCSS
39. online method using public detections
30.7
37.5
±9.0
75.02.58.2% 48.0% 14,60698,511838 (18.2)2,057 (44.7)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
TSSRC
40. online method using public detections
20.7
42.4
±11.8
76.82.512.8% 44.9% 14,68589,654739 (14.5)1,368 (26.9)16.8Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAMOTPFAFMTML FPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
SMOT
41. using public detections
35.7
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.

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

(50.2% MOTA)

MOT16-06

MOT16-06

(42.7% MOTA)

MOT16-07

MOT16-07

(37.5% MOTA)

...

...

MOT16-08

MOT16-08

(28.8% MOTA)

MOT16-14

MOT16-14

(23.0% 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.