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 Rank MOTAMOTPFAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
PTBFPT
1. 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
rookie_ksp
2. 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
JPDA_m
3. 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.
SMOT
4. 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.
CMRZF
5. 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
GMPHD_HDA
6. 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.
GMPHD_AM
7. 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
PAOT
8. 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
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
LKDeep
10. 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
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAMOTPFAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
DP_NMS
11. 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
12. 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
CEM
13. 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.
DQNTracker
14. 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
TBD
15. 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.
tMOT
16. 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
deep_sort
17. 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
EMOT
18. 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
LP2D
19. 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.
JCmin_MOT
20. 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
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAMOTPFAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
LTTSC-CRF
21. 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.
GMCSS
22. 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
OVBT
23. 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, .
PRMOT
24. 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
EAMTT_pub
25. 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
DeepAC
26. 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
MOT_M_hun
27. 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
LINF1
28. 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
29. 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
TSSRC
30. 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
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAMOTPFAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
oBot
31. 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
oICF
32. 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.
CDA_DDALv2
33. 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.
QuadMOT16
34. 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.
NHL
35. 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
PT_JMC
36. 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
EDMT
37. 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
HAF16
38. 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
MHT_DAM
39. 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.
RAR16pub
40. 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
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAMOTPFAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
JMC
41. 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.
NOMT
42. 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.
MCjoint
43. 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.
MDPNN16
44. 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.
JCSTD
45. 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
EAGS16
46. 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
NLLMPa
47. 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.
FWT
48. 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.
LMP
49. 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.
HCC
50. 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

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.



Contact