MOT Challenge - Results

Click on a measure to sort the table accordingly. See below for a more detailed description.

Showing only entries that use public detections!

Benchmark Statistics

Tracker	MOTA	IDF1	MOTP	MT	ML	FP	FN	Recall	Precision	FAF	ID Sw.	Frag	Hz
SFS 1.	50.8 ±17.4	41.1 ±9.6	74.9	341 (27.5)	251 (20.2)	50,139	200,932	61.2	86.3	11.2	3,503 (57.3)	7,617 (124.5)	0.1
SFS 1.	Anonymous submission
track_bnw 2.	50.8 ±21.3	52.1 ±15.5	76.8	472 (38.0)	240 (19.3)	58,689	193,199	62.7	84.7	13.1	2,751 (43.9)	4,233 (67.6)	0.2
track_bnw 2.	Anonymous submission
HTBT 3.	48.9 ±21.9	54.6 ±10.4	78.0	384 (30.9)	274 (22.1)	45,660	216,803	58.1	86.8	10.2	2,187 (37.6)	3,067 (52.8)	0.2
HTBT 3.	Anonymous submission
BBT 4.	46.8 ±21.3	42.2 ±12.0	78.0	312 (25.1)	289 (23.3)	35,014	236,176	54.4	88.9	7.8	3,880 (71.4)	7,207 (132.6)	8.0
BBT 4.	Anonymous submission
TBDX 5.	43.9 ±22.5	31.4 ±9.7	76.1	312 (25.1)	284 (22.9)	50,710	235,059	54.6	84.8	11.3	4,311 (79.0)	5,754 (105.4)	16.9
TBDX 5.	Anonymous submission
SORT20 6.	42.7 ±18.6	45.1 ±13.1	78.5	208 (16.7)	326 (26.2)	27,521	264,694	48.8	90.2	6.1	4,470 (91.5)	17,798 (364.4)	57.3
SORT20 6.	A. Bewley, Z. Ge, L. Ott, F. Ramos, B. Upcroft. Simple online and realtime tracking. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2016.

Sequences	Frames	Trajectories	Boxes
4	4479	1501	765465

Sequence difficulty (from easiest to hardest, measured by average MOTA)

MOT20-04

(65.9 MOTA)

MOT20-07

(52.9 MOTA)

MOT20-06

(26.8 MOTA)

MOT20-08

(14.3 MOTA)

Lower is better. Higher is better.

Measure	Better	Perfect	Description
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. The frequency is provided by the authors and not officially evaluated by the MOTChallenge.

Symbol	Description
	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.
	This method used the provided detection set as input.
	This method used the provided detection set as input.
	This entry has been submitted or updated less than a week ago.
	This entry has been submitted or updated less than a week ago.

[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.