2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/cvpr.2016.462
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Object Tracking via Dual Linear Structured SVM and Explicit Feature Map

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
143
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 231 publications
(144 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
143
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The trackers of , Qi et al (2016); Nam and Han (2016), Bertinetto et al (2016b) are indicative trackers that employ neural networks and achieve top results. STRUCK (Hare et al 2011) is a discriminative tracker that performed very well in the Online Object Tracking benchmark , while the more recent method of Ning et al (2016) improves the computational burden of the structural SVM of STRUCK and reports superior results. SPOT (Zhang and van der Maaten 2014) is a strong performing part based tracker, CMT (Nebehay and Pflugfelder 2015) is a strong performing keypoint based tracker, LRST (Zhang et al 2014d) and ORIA (Wu et al 2012) are recent generative trackers.…”
Section: Model Free Trackingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The trackers of , Qi et al (2016); Nam and Han (2016), Bertinetto et al (2016b) are indicative trackers that employ neural networks and achieve top results. STRUCK (Hare et al 2011) is a discriminative tracker that performed very well in the Online Object Tracking benchmark , while the more recent method of Ning et al (2016) improves the computational burden of the structural SVM of STRUCK and reports superior results. SPOT (Zhang and van der Maaten 2014) is a strong performing part based tracker, CMT (Nebehay and Pflugfelder 2015) is a strong performing keypoint based tracker, LRST (Zhang et al 2014d) and ORIA (Wu et al 2012) are recent generative trackers.…”
Section: Model Free Trackingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We compare SATIN with nine state-of-the-art trackers, including ACFN [60], CREST [61], DSST [11], SiamTri [62], SiamRPN [25], SiamFC [21], DeepLMCF [63], DLSSVM [64] and KCF [10], on the OTB benchmark datasets [43,44]. Among the participants, we treat SiamFC and SiamRPN as our baseline.…”
Section: Experiments On Otbmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As illustrated in Fig. 8, we compare the precision plots and success plots obtained by our OA-LSTM-ADA and several state-of-the-art trackers including MemTrack [50], TRACA [57], SiamFC-tri [38], CFNet2-tri [38], ACFN [58], CNN-SVM [59], DLSSVM [60], SiamFC [5], CFNet [9], CSR-DCF [61], Staple [30], RFL [10], KCF [29] and CNT [62]. We choose these methods because SiamFC, CFNet, SiamFC-tri and CFNet2-tri are Siamese network based tracking methods, which are closely related to our OA-LSTM-ADA (recall that OA-LSTM-ADA utilizes the Siamese network to pre-estimate the densely sampled proposals).…”
Section: Quantitative Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%