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 RankMOTA MOTPFAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
SPSNF
1. using public detections
22.1
32.0
±15.3
73.43.77.5% 44.0% 21,703100,0152,177 (48.2)3,092 (68.5)11.8Public
Anonymous submission
SMV
2. using public detections
17.8
40.8
±14.7
74.01.99.1% 42.8% 11,36295,2741,381 (28.9)2,060 (43.1)10.2Public
Anonymous submission
OMM
3. using public detections
17.8
40.3
±13.3
74.11.78.0% 46.5% 9,89297,5911,290 (27.8)1,896 (40.8)34.6Public
Anonymous submission
SMMUML
4. using public detections
14.5
43.3
±13.6
74.31.411.9% 42.8% 8,46393,892985 (20.3)1,509 (31.1)182.7Public
Anonymous submission
oICF
5. online method using public detections
15.7
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.
DQNTracker
6. online method using public detections
20.4
12.6
±7.6
74.37.313.0% 36.9% 43,24792,63723,378 (475.3)6,543 (133.0)9.9Public
Anonymous submission
LINF1
7. using public detections
16.0
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.
DACTracker
8. online method using public detections
19.4
38.2
±9.5
74.81.28.4% 45.8% 7,079103,3942,228 (51.5)5,969 (137.9)9.9Public
Anonymous submission
GRIM
9. using public detections
19.1
36.1
±92.6
75.02.711.7% 38.6% 16,16396,4463,967 (84.2)6,274 (133.2)10.0Public
Anonymous submission
EAMTT_pub
10. online method using public detections
18.2
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
TrackerAvg RankMOTA MOTPFAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
SMOT
11. using public detections
25.7
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.
YGT
12. using public detections
13.2
44.7
±9.0
75.22.118.6% 46.5% 12,49187,855404 (7.8)709 (13.7)0.6Public
Anonymous submission
OVBT
13. online method using public detections
21.5
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, .
GMPHD_HDA
14. online method using public detections
16.5
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.
MDPNN16
15. online method using public detections
12.2
43.8
±7.3
75.50.612.4% 40.7% 3,50198,193723 (15.7)2,036 (44.1)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.
JMC
16. using public detections
10.7
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.
CEM
17. using public detections
18.7
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.
JCmin_MOT
18. online method using public detections new
14.2
36.7
±9.1
75.90.57.5% 54.4% 2,936111,890667 (17.3)831 (21.5)14.8Public
Anonymous submission
LTTSC-CRF
19. using public detections
19.0
37.6
±0.0
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.
LRIM
20. online method using public detections
18.7
30.9
±15.8
76.10.45.4% 54.9% 2,375119,4804,075 (118.2)5,484 (159.1)10.0Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTA MOTPFAFMTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
MCjoint
21. using public detections
9.5
47.1
±10.8
76.31.120.4% 46.9% 6,70389,368370 (7.3)598 (11.7)0.6Public
Anonymous submission
JPDA_m
22. using public detections
14.8
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.
QuadMOT16
23. using public detections
11.5
44.1
±9.4
76.41.114.6% 44.9% 6,38894,775745 (15.5)1,096 (22.8)1.8Public
Anonymous submission
DP_NMS
24. using public detections
14.9
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.
TBD
25. using public detections
18.6
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.
NOMT
26. using public detections
8.1
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.
MHT_DAM
27. using public detections
10.4
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.
DSR
28. using public detections
11.2
42.8
±8.8
77.61.112.8% 45.8% 6,37297,214688 (14.7)756 (16.2)1.4Public
Anonymous submission
NLLMPa
29. using public detections
7.1
47.6
±10.6
78.51.017.0% 40.4% 5,84489,093629 (12.3)768 (15.0)8.3Public
Anonymous submission
LMP
30. using public detections
7.5
48.8
±9.8
79.01.118.2% 40.1% 6,65486,245481 (9.1)595 (11.3)0.5Public
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

(49.9% MOTA)

MOT16-06

MOT16-06

(39.4% MOTA)

MOT16-07

MOT16-07

(36.9% MOTA)

...

...

MOT16-01

MOT16-01

(27.8% MOTA)

MOT16-14

MOT16-14

(20.3% 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.
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.