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 MOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
DP_NMS
1. using public detections
31.1
26.2
±9.3
31.24.1% 67.5% 3,689130,557365 (12.9)638 (22.5)5.9Public
H. Pirsiavash, D. Ramanan, C. Fowlkes. Globally-Optimal Greedy Algorithms for Tracking a Variable Number of Objects. In CVPR, 2011.
JPDA_m
2. using public detections
32.0
26.2
±6.1
0.04.1% 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.
GCK
3. online method using public detections
42.3
28.7
±8.5
30.63.4% 51.0% 21,436106,4242,217 (53.3)3,277 (78.7)25.1Public
Anonymous submission
SMOT
4. using public detections
49.7
29.7
±7.3
0.05.3% 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.
GMPHD_HDA
5. online method using public detections
32.1
30.5
±6.9
33.44.6% 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.
CppSORT
6. online method using public detections
37.1
31.5
±9.0
27.74.3% 59.9% 3,048120,2781,587 (46.6)2,239 (65.8)687.1Public
S. Murray. Real-Time Multiple Object Tracking - A Study on the Importance of Speed. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.03572, 2017.
DWET
7. online method using public detections
35.3
32.2
±10.4
38.36.2% 63.0% 7,297115,780603 (16.5)1,184 (32.4)11.3Public
Anonymous submission
CEM
8. using public detections
35.7
33.2
±7.9
0.07.8% 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.
GM_PHD_N1T
9. online method using public detections
39.6
33.3
±8.9
25.55.5% 56.0% 1,750116,4523,499 (96.8)3,594 (99.5)9.9Public
N. Baisa, A. Wallace. Development of a N-type GM-PHD Filter for Multiple Target, Multiple Type Visual Tracking. In CoRR, 2017.
CRC_MB
10. using public detections
37.6
33.6
±10.2
40.17.5% 53.0% 5,882112,5882,633 (68.8)5,483 (143.3)8.5Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
TBD
11. using public detections
43.4
33.7
±9.2
0.07.2% 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.
TDP
12. online method using public detections
36.3
33.9
±10.2
40.46.2% 62.2% 6,709113,249480 (12.7)1,105 (29.2)9.7Public
Anonymous submission
DRT
13. online method using public detections
32.8
34.7
±11.4
41.16.3% 61.8% 6,992111,617460 (11.9)1,127 (29.1)6.2Public
Anonymous submission
cm_test
14. online method using public detections new
31.5
35.4
±20.2
40.36.5% 71.4% 4,427112,889402 (10.6)1,176 (30.9)1.6Public
Anonymous submission
LP2D
15. using public detections
33.3
35.7
±10.1
34.28.7% 50.7% 5,084111,163915 (23.4)1,264 (32.4)49.3Public
MOT baseline: Linear programming on 2D image coordinates.
HISP_T
16. online method using public detections
38.7
35.9
±8.5
28.97.8% 50.1% 6,412107,9182,594 (63.6)2,298 (56.3)4.8Public
N. Baisa. Online Multi-target Visual Tracking using a HISP Filter. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications - Volume 5: VISAPP,, 2018.
JCmin_MOT
17. online method using public detections
30.0
36.7
±9.1
36.27.5% 54.4% 2,936111,890667 (17.3)831 (21.5)14.8Public
M. Abhijeet Boragule. Joint Cost Minimization for Multi-Object Tracking. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Vide and Signale Based Surveillance, 2017.
LTTSC-CRF
18. using public detections
35.1
37.6
±9.9
42.19.6% 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.
YT16
19. online method using public detections
37.7
37.8
±8.8
31.18.8% 46.1% 4,384106,3652,655 (63.7)2,750 (66.0)12.1Public
Anonymous submission
Q_lc
20. online method using public detections
32.0
37.9
±10.3
48.314.2% 37.9% 19,33393,157697 (14.3)1,918 (39.2)0.3Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
GMMCP
21. using public detections
37.2
38.1
±7.8
35.58.6% 50.9% 6,607105,315937 (22.2)1,669 (39.5)0.5Public
A. Dehghan, S. Assari, M. Shah.. GMMCP-Tracker:Globally Optimal Generalized Maximum Multi Clique Problem for Multiple Object Tracking. In CVPR, 2015.
HAM_ACT16
22. online method using public detections
28.1
38.1
±8.2
43.37.8% 54.4% 6,976105,434418 (9.9)707 (16.8)8.0Public
Y. Yoon, A. Boragule, Y. Song, K. Yoon, M. Jeon. Online Multi-Object Tracking with Historical Appearance Matching and Scene Adaptive Detection Filtering. In arXiv:1805.10916, 2018.
OVBT
23. online method using public detections
42.0
38.4
±8.8
37.87.5% 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, .
EAMTT_pub
24. online method using public detections
32.3
38.8
±8.5
42.47.9% 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
SDMT
25. online method using public detections
29.1
39.6
±8.3
42.311.7% 49.1% 11,13098,343602 (13.1)772 (16.8)19.8Public
Anonymous submission
TST_PLS
26. online method using public detections
38.0
39.7
±11.1
43.36.7% 47.4% 8,447100,728783 (17.5)1,730 (38.7)0.7Public
Anonymous submission
ReIDT
27. online method using public detections
31.8
40.0
±10.3
43.313.6% 38.1% 17,08891,2411,064 (21.3)2,274 (45.5)6.5Public
Anonymous submission
AM_ADM
28. online method using public detections
31.9
40.1
±10.1
43.87.1% 46.2% 8,50399,891789 (17.5)1,736 (38.4)1.4Public
Anonymous submission
FullTest
29. online method using public detections
29.8
40.7
±32.6
44.811.6% 42.3% 14,35492,6501,136 (23.1)3,864 (78.6)236.8Public
Anonymous submission
PRT
30. online method using public detections
31.0
40.8
±13.0
44.213.7% 38.3% 15,14391,7921,051 (21.2)2,210 (44.5)6.2Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
VOFNet
31. online method using public detections
30.7
40.9
±8.3
46.79.7% 47.0% 4,750102,277684 (15.6)4,310 (98.2)24.9Public
Anonymous submission
LINF1
32. using public detections
27.6
41.0
±9.5
45.711.6% 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.
TBNMF16
33. online method using public detections
33.2
42.0
±9.2
37.510.4% 44.9% 4,96699,7781,085 (24.0)1,400 (30.9)4.5Public
Anonymous submission
TTAR
34. using public detections
30.9
42.2
±8.0
37.210.4% 47.8% 4,87299,550909 (20.0)945 (20.8)19.7Public
Anonymous submission
oICF
35. online method using public detections
28.7
43.2
±10.2
49.311.3% 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.
SAD_T
36. online method using public detections
31.9
43.4
±16.2
44.011.7% 59.3% 15,34187,086763 (14.6)1,832 (35.1)11.4Public
Anonymous submission
LFNF16
37. using public detections
29.3
43.6
±11.0
41.613.3% 45.7% 6,61695,363836 (17.5)938 (19.7)0.6Public
Sheng H, Hao L, Chen J, et al. Robust Local Effective Matching Model for Multi-Target Tracking. In PCM, 2017
deepS2
38. using public detections
26.3
43.6
±8.1
40.415.4% 41.9% 8,81993,095871 (17.8)851 (17.4)0.7Public
ID 32
STbase
39. using public detections
29.8
43.7
±9.2
50.815.2% 43.0% 8,89193,036662 (13.5)1,844 (37.7)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
CDA_DDALv2
40. online method using public detections
27.6
43.9
±7.8
45.110.7% 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.
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
QuadMOT16
41. using public detections
28.0
44.1
±9.4
38.314.6% 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.
TripletT
42. online method using public detections
26.0
44.6
±9.7
48.812.6% 46.6% 2,72597,948422 (9.1)1,093 (23.6)0.1Public
Anonymous submission
DCCRF16
43. online method using public detections
28.5
44.8
±9.8
39.714.1% 42.3% 5,61394,133968 (20.0)1,378 (28.5)0.1Public
H. Zhou, W. Ouyang, J. Cheng, X. Wang, H. Li. Deep Continuous Conditional Random Fields with Asymmetric Inter-object Constraints for Online Multi-object Tracking. In IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2018.
EDMT
44. using public detections
19.5
45.3
±9.1
47.917.0% 39.9% 11,12287,890639 (12.3)946 (18.3)1.8Public
J. Chen, H. Sheng, Y. Zhang, Z. Xiong. Enhancing Detection Model for Multiple Hypothesis Tracking. In BMTT-PETS CVPRw, 2017.
INTERA_MOT
45. using public detections
18.7
45.4
±8.6
47.718.1% 38.7% 13,40785,547600 (11.3)930 (17.5)4.3Public
L. Lan, X. Wang, S. Zhang, D. Tao, W. Gao, T. Huang. Interacting Tracklets for Multi-object Tracking. In IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2018.
MHT_DAM
46. using public detections
21.2
45.8
±8.9
46.116.2% 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.
STAM16
47. online method using public detections
26.3
46.0
±9.1
50.014.6% 43.6% 6,89591,117473 (9.5)1,422 (28.4)0.2Public
Q. Chu, W. Ouyang, H. Li, X. Wang, B. Liu, N. Yu. Online Multi-object Tracking Using CNN-Based Single Object Tracker with Spatial-Temporal Attention Mechanism. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017.
JMC
48. using public detections
20.6
46.3
±9.0
46.315.5% 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
49. using public detections
16.0
46.4
±9.9
53.318.3% 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.
IMWIS
50. using public detections
21.9
47.0
±9.3
41.816.2% 41.4% 4,84290,901868 (17.3)904 (18.0)0.7Public
TCSVT-02160-2018
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
MCjoint
51. using public detections
17.3
47.1
±10.8
52.320.4% 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.
AMIR
52. online method using public detections
20.5
47.2
±7.7
46.314.0% 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 ICCV, 2017.
eHAF16
53. using public detections
18.0
47.2
±16.8
52.418.6% 42.8% 12,58683,107542 (10.0)787 (14.5)0.5Public
TCSVT-02141-2018
JCSTD
54. online method using public detections
25.3
47.4
±8.3
41.114.4% 36.4% 8,07686,6381,266 (24.1)2,697 (51.4)8.8Public
Anonymous submission
Adaptation
55. using public detections
13.8
47.6
±10.6
47.417.0% 40.4% 5,78389,168627 (12.3)761 (14.9)2.5Public
Anonymous submission
NLLMPa
56. using public detections
16.2
47.6
±10.6
47.317.0% 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.
MOTDT
57. online method using public detections
20.4
47.6
±8.2
50.915.2% 38.3% 9,25385,431792 (14.9)1,858 (35.0)20.6Public
C. Long, A. Haizhou, Z. Zijie, S. Chong. Real-time Multiple People Tracking with Deeply Learned Candidate Selection and Person Re-identification. In ICME, 2018.
FWT
58. using public detections
21.7
47.8
±9.4
44.319.1% 38.2% 8,88685,487852 (16.0)1,534 (28.9)0.6Public
R. Henschel, L. Leal-Taixé, D. Cremers, B. Rosenhahn. Fusion of Head and Full-Body Detectors for Multi-Object Tracking. In Trajnet CVPRW, 2018.
TripT
59. online method using public detections
19.7
48.1
±8.5
51.915.8% 40.2% 2,82791,210563 (11.3)1,143 (22.9)0.6Public
Anonymous submission
GCRA
60. using public detections
19.2
48.2
±8.3
48.612.9% 41.1% 5,10488,586821 (16.0)1,117 (21.7)2.8Public
C.Ma, C.Yang, F.Yang, Y.Zhuang, Z.Zhang, H.Jia, D.Xie. Trajectory Factory: Tracklet Cleaving and Re-connection by Deep Siamese Bi-GRU for Multiple Object Tracking. In ICME 2018.
TrackerAvg Rank MOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
TSN
61. using public detections
20.7
48.2
±8.7
45.719.9% 38.9% 8,44785,315665 (12.5)829 (15.6)0.8Public
Anonymous submission
TripBFT
62. online method using public detections
18.7
48.3
±8.1
50.915.4% 40.1% 2,70691,047543 (10.8)896 (17.9)0.5Public
Anonymous submission
TLMHT
63. using public detections
16.1
48.7
±8.6
55.315.7% 44.5% 6,63286,504413 (7.9)642 (12.2)4.8Public
Anonymous submission
LMP
64. using public detections
15.2
48.8
±9.8
51.318.2% 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.
KCF16
65. online method using public detections
21.3
48.8
±9.6
47.215.8% 38.1% 5,87586,567906 (17.3)1,116 (21.2)0.1Public
Paper ID 207
AFN
66. using public detections
18.1
49.0
±10.2
48.219.1% 35.7% 9,50882,506899 (16.4)1,383 (25.3)0.6Public
Anonymous submission
TPM
67. using public detections
19.8
49.1
±9.1
46.920.0% 38.9% 9,03883,031679 (12.5)850 (15.6)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

(51.3% MOTA)

MOT16-06

MOT16-06

(42.1% MOTA)

MOT16-07

MOT16-07

(37.0% MOTA)

...

...

MOT16-08

MOT16-08

(29.0% MOTA)

MOT16-14

MOT16-14

(23.3% 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.
IDF1 higher 100 % ID F1 Score [2]. The ratio of correctly identified detections over the average number of ground-truth and computed detections.
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 [3].
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] Ristani, E., Solera, F., Zou, R., Cucchiara, R. & Tomasi, C. Performance Measures and a Data Set for Multi-Target, Multi-Camera Tracking. In ECCV workshop on Benchmarking Multi-Target Tracking, 2016.
[3] 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.