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 RankMOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
AMIR
1. online method using public detections
20.2
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.
ARM16
2. using public detections
34.2
35.3
±7.7
40.312.8% 38.5% 23,52092,1712,334 (47.2)3,516 (71.1)5.9Public
Anonymous submission
ASSMOT
3. using public detections
18.9
46.0
±9.3
54.416.6% 42.7% 8,04589,959538 (10.6)1,623 (32.0)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
CDA_DDALv2
4. online method using public detections
29.8
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.
CEM
5. using public detections
37.7
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.
CKCF
6. online method using public detections
38.4
38.2
±11.1
44.67.6% 50.6% 11,646100,248831 (18.5)3,250 (72.2)3.9Public
Anonymous submission
CMRZF
7. using public detections
36.1
30.4
±10.8
29.42.9% 70.5% 1,421124,4831,030 (32.5)733 (23.1)16.9Public
Anonymous submission
CppSORT
8. online method using public detections
39.1
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.
DCCRF16
9. online method using public detections
29.3
44.8
±9.5
39.714.1% 42.3% 5,61394,125968 (20.0)1,378 (28.5)0.1Public
Anonymous submission
DeepAC
10. online method using public detections
35.6
38.8
±9.3
33.19.1% 42.8% 5,444103,1742,886 (66.5)6,592 (151.9)21.1Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
DMMOT
11. online method using public detections
17.9
46.1
±11.1
54.817.4% 42.7% 7,90989,874532 (10.5)1,616 (31.9)0.5Public
Anonymous submission
dmot
12. using public detections
31.3
40.7
±8.3
40.612.0% 44.1% 9,31997,992773 (16.7)1,106 (23.9)6.6Public
Anonymous submission
DP_NMS
13. using public detections
32.9
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.
DQNTracker
14. online method using public detections
41.2
33.7
±13.7
31.76.9% 59.3% 5,210113,8651,744 (46.4)4,184 (111.4)9.9Public
Anonymous submission
EAGS16
15. using public detections
13.6
47.4
±10.4
50.117.3% 42.7% 8,36986,931575 (11.0)913 (17.5)197.3Public
#PR-D-17-01373# Enhancing Association Graph with Super-voxel for Multi-target Tracking
EAMTT_pub
16. online method using public detections
35.3
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
EDMT
17. using public detections
19.0
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.
EMOT
18. online method using public detections
30.7
43.0
±8.8
49.213.8% 42.7% 9,52193,672712 (14.6)1,903 (39.1)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
ERCTracker
19. online method using public detections
35.3
32.3
±9.4
29.25.7% 62.1% 1,193121,333953 (28.5)943 (28.2)32.0Public
Anonymous submission
FullTest
20. online method using public detections
32.8
40.7
±32.6
44.811.6% 42.3% 14,35492,6501,136 (23.1)3,864 (78.6)236.8Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
FWT
21. using public detections
20.4
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. A Novel Multi-Detector Fusion Framework for Multi-Object Tracking. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.08314, 2017.
GCRA
22. using public detections
18.8
48.2
±8.3
48.612.9% 41.1% 5,10488,586821 (16.0)1,117 (21.7)2.8Public
Anonymous submission
GMCSS
23. online method using public detections
39.1
38.3
±9.0
44.79.4% 46.6% 16,49195,303735 (15.4)2,122 (44.5)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
GMMCP
24. using public detections
39.3
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.
GMPHD_AM
25. online method using public detections
39.4
30.6
±6.7
30.25.9% 53.1% 4,982120,698930 (27.5)1,856 (54.9)7.9Public
Anonymous submission
GMPHD_HDA
26. online method using public detections
33.7
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.
GM_PHD_N1T
27. online method using public detections
43.6
31.6
±8.6
19.75.5% 55.2% 4,767115,6454,348 (118.9)3,986 (109.0)9.9Public
Anonymous submission
HAF16
28. using public detections
22.4
45.7
±8.9
47.215.4% 41.4% 10,03888,319660 (12.8)985 (19.1)0.7Public
Anonymous submission
HCC
29. using public detections
11.2
49.3
±10.2
50.717.8% 39.9% 5,33386,795391 (7.5)535 (10.2)0.8Public
Anonymous submission
HFCLP
30. using public detections
31.1
42.7
±7.6
35.112.9% 40.2% 8,50294,2661,676 (34.7)1,792 (37.1)19.7Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
HISP_T
31. online method using public detections
42.4
35.9
±8.5
28.97.8% 50.1% 6,412107,9182,594 (63.6)2,298 (56.3)4.8Public
Anonymous submission
HSFSC
32. online method using public detections
31.2
43.3
±9.1
41.612.0% 43.9% 5,55896,996874 (18.7)1,482 (31.7)3.0Public
Anonymous submission
IMWIS
33. using public detections
21.4
47.0
±9.3
41.816.2% 41.4% 4,84290,901868 (17.3)904 (18.0)0.7Public
Anonymous submission
JCSTD
34. online method using public detections
26.4
47.4
±8.3
41.114.4% 36.4% 8,07786,6311,266 (24.1)2,696 (51.4)3.3Public
Anonymous submission
JMC
35. using public detections
19.8
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.
JPDA_m
36. using public detections
34.5
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.
LINF1
37. using public detections
29.8
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.
LMP
38. using public detections
13.8
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.
LP2D
39. using public detections
34.8
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.
LTTSC-CRF
40. using public detections
37.4
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.
TrackerAvg RankMOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
MCjoint
41. using public detections
17.5
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.
MHT_DAM
42. using public detections
22.3
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.
MOTDT
43. online method using public detections
19.8
47.6
±8.2
50.915.2% 38.3% 9,25385,431792 (14.9)1,858 (35.0)20.6Public
Anonymous submission
MOT_M_hun
44. using public detections
32.8
39.0
±10.3
47.513.7% 40.1% 15,34595,029843 (17.6)1,790 (37.4)1.2Public
Anonymous submission
NHL
45. using public detections
34.0
45.1
±8.5
32.315.9% 37.3% 12,60585,6911,747 (33.0)2,033 (38.4)0.3Public
Anonymous submission
NLLMPa
46. using public detections
15.8
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.
NOMT
47. using public detections
15.3
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.
NOSVM
48. using public detections
31.1
43.6
±9.4
51.115.3% 42.8% 9,10692,991718 (14.7)2,084 (42.5)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
oBot
49. online method using public detections
34.1
42.5
±20.4
40.812.6% 40.7% 10,42092,8921,559 (31.8)1,639 (33.4)2.3Public
Anonymous BMVC submission
oICF
50. online method using public detections
31.3
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.
TrackerAvg RankMOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
ONEEC
51. online method using public detections
24.4
45.3
±9.5
53.716.3% 42.4% 8,42390,821550 (11.0)1,574 (31.4)0.3Public
Anonymous submission
OVBT
52. online method using public detections
47.2
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, .
overMOT
53. online method using public detections
30.8
43.7
±9.3
50.815.2% 43.0% 8,89193,036662 (13.5)1,844 (37.7)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
OVMOT
54. online method using public detections
33.9
41.9
±8.8
50.115.0% 43.0% 10,71294,510626 (13.0)2,008 (41.7)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
PRMOT
55. using public detections
34.7
43.1
±9.3
44.814.5% 41.8% 10,49592,1741,145 (23.2)1,999 (40.4)0.6Public
Anonymous submission
PSMT
56. using public detections
34.0
43.9
±9.3
50.715.4% 42.8% 9,10992,271944 (19.1)2,036 (41.2)0.3Public
Anonymous submission
QuadMOT16
57. using public detections
30.3
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.
Q_lc
58. online method using public detections
35.1
37.9
±10.3
48.314.2% 37.9% 19,33393,157697 (14.3)1,918 (39.2)0.3Public
Anonymous submission
RAR16pub
59. online method using public detections
27.3
45.9
±9.7
48.813.2% 41.9% 6,87191,173648 (13.0)1,992 (39.8)0.9Public
Anonymous ICCV submission
RMFP
60. online method using public detections
33.4
43.4
±9.2
50.414.9% 44.0% 7,55995,015682 (14.2)1,999 (41.7)0.3Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
rookie_ksp
61. using public detections
47.9
24.8
±7.7
11.52.4% 66.1% 1,421132,3613,343 (122.0)4,886 (178.3)19.7Public
Anonymous submission
SAC
62. online method using public detections
30.8
44.6
±9.2
42.712.1% 43.6% 3,92996,285795 (16.8)1,414 (30.0)1.1Public
Anonymous submission
SLT
63. online method using public detections
36.1
41.5
±10.4
41.611.7% 37.0% 8,07496,9561,705 (36.4)3,170 (67.7)9.6Public
Anonymous submission
SMOT
64. using public detections
55.3
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.
STAM16
65. online method using public detections
27.9
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 arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.02843, 2017.
STbase
66. using public detections
31.1
43.7
±9.2
50.815.2% 43.0% 8,89193,036662 (13.5)1,844 (37.7)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
STFP
67. online method using public detections
39.7
39.8
±8.9
47.413.0% 41.4% 12,11896,755950 (20.2)2,630 (56.0)0.4Public
Anonymous submission
STMOT
68. using public detections
26.2
45.4
±9.2
53.316.3% 42.8% 8,07190,883561 (11.2)1,548 (30.9)0.3Public
Anonymous submission
TBD
69. using public detections
47.7
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.
TBSS
70. online method using public detections
30.8
44.6
±9.3
42.612.3% 43.9% 4,13696,128790 (16.7)1,419 (30.0)3.0Public
Anonymous submission
TrackerAvg RankMOTAIDF1MTMLFPFNID Sw.FragHzDetector
tMOT
71. using public detections
36.7
28.9
±10.5
32.45.8% 63.0% 3,754125,494468 (15.0)694 (22.3)11.8Public
Anonymous submission
TTAR
72. using public detections
34.0
42.2
±8.0
37.210.4% 47.8% 4,87299,550909 (20.0)945 (20.8)19.7Public
Anonymous submission
UBTT
73. using public detections
22.8
47.2
±16.8
52.418.6% 42.8% 12,58683,107542 (10.0)787 (14.5)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

(51.7% MOTA)

MOT16-06

MOT16-06

(44.2% MOTA)

MOT16-07

MOT16-07

(38.0% MOTA)

...

...

MOT16-08

MOT16-08

(29.4% MOTA)

MOT16-14

MOT16-14

(24.6% 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.