text: The problem of visual tracking evaluation is sporting a large variety of performance measures, and largely suffers from lack of consensus about which measures should be used in experiments. This makes the cross-paper tracker comparison difficult. Furthermore, as some measures may be less effective than others, the tracking results may be skewed or biased toward particular tracking aspects. In this paper, we revisit the popular performance measures and tracker performance visualizations and analyze them theoretically and experimentally. We show that several measures are equivalent from the point of information they provide for tracker comparison and, crucially, that some are more brittle than the others. Based on our analysis, we narrow down the set of potential measures to only two complementary ones, describing accuracy and robustness, thus pushing toward homogenization of the tracker evaluation methodology. These two measures can be intuitively interpreted and visualized and have been employed by the recent visual object tracking challenges as the foundation for the evaluation methodology.
  @cite_28: We propose an adaptive framework to estimate the quality of video tracking algorithms without ground-truth data. The framework is divided into two main stages, namely, the estimation of the tracker condition to identify temporal segments during which a target is lost and the measurement of the quality of the estimated track when the tracker is successful. A key novelty of the proposed framework is the capability of evaluating video trackers with multiple failures and recoveries over long sequences. Successful tracking is identified by analyzing the uncertainty of the tracker, whereas track recovery from errors is determined based on the time-reversibility constraint. The proposed approach is demonstrated on a particle filter tracker over a heterogeneous data set. Experimental results show the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed framework that improves state-of-the-art approaches in the presence of tracking challenges such as occlusions, illumination changes, and clutter and on sequences containing multiple tracking errors and recoveries.
  @cite_19: Evaluation of tracking algorithms in the absence of ground truth is a challenging problem. There exist a variety of approaches for this problem, ranging from formal model validation techniques to heuristics that look for mismatches between track properties and the observed data. However, few of these methods scale up to the task of visual tracking, where the models are usually nonlinear and complex and typically lie in a high-dimensional space. Further, scenarios that cause track failures and or poor tracking performance are also quite diverse for the visual tracking problem. In this paper, we propose an online performance evaluation strategy for tracking systems based on particle filters using a time-reversed Markov chain. The key intuition of our proposed methodology relies on the time-reversible nature of physical motion exhibited by most objects, which in turn should be possessed by a good tracker. In the presence of tracking failures due to occlusion, low SNR, or modeling errors, this reversible nature of the tracker is violated. We use this property for detection of track failures. To evaluate the performance of the tracker at time instant t, we use the posterior of the tracking algorithm to initialize a time-reversed Markov chain. We compute the posterior density of track parameters at the starting time t = 0 by filtering back in time to the initial time instant. The distance between the posterior density of the time-reversed chain (at t = 0) and the prior density used to initialize the tracking algorithm forms the decision statistic for evaluation. It is observed that when the data are generated by the underlying models, the decision statistic takes a low value. We provide a thorough experimental analysis of the evaluation methodology. Specifically, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach for tackling common challenges such as occlusion, pose, and illumination changes and provide the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Finally, we also show the applicability of the core ideas of the paper to other tracking algorithms such as the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi (KLT) feature tracker and the mean-shift tracker.
  @cite_23: Evaluating visual tracking algorithms, or trackers for short, is of great importance in computer vision. However, it is hard to fairly compare trackers due to many parameters need to be tuned in the experimental configurations. On the other hand, when introducing a new tracker, a recent trend is to validate it by comparing it with several existing ones. Such an evaluation may have subjective biases towards the new tracker which typically performs the best. This is mainly due to the difficulty to optimally tune all its competitors and sometimes the selected testing sequences. By contrast, little subjective bias exists towards the second best ones in the contest. This observation inspires us with a novel perspective towards inhibiting subjective bias in evaluating trackers by analyzing the results between the second bests. In particular, we first collect all tracking papers published in major computer vision venues in recent years. From these papers, after filtering out potential biases in various aspects, we create a dataset containing many records of comparison results between various visual trackers. Using these records, we derive performance rankings of the involved trackers by four different methods. The first two methods model the dataset as a graph and then derive the rankings over the graph, one by a rank aggregation algorithm and the other by a PageRank-like solution. The other two methods take the records as generated from sports contests and adopt widely used Elo's and Glicko's rating systems to derive the rankings. The experimental results are presented and may serve as a reference for related research.
summary: Finally, evaluation of tracker performance without ground-truth annotations has been investigated by @cite_19 , where the authors propose to use time-reversible nature of physical motion. As noted by @cite_28 , this approach is not suitable for longer sequences. They propose to extend the approach using failure detection based on the uncertainty of the tracker. The problem is that the method has to be adapted to each tracker specifically and is useful only for investigative, but not for comparative purposes. An interesting approach to tracker comparison has also been recently proposed by Pang and Habin @cite_23 . They aggregate existing experiments, published in various articles, in a page-rank fashion to form a ranking of trackers. The authors acknowledge that their meta-analysis approach is not appropriate for ranking recently published trackers. Furthermore, their approach does not remove bias that comes from correlation of multiple performance measures, which is one of the goals of our work.