2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2020
DOI: 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00833
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SQE: a Self Quality Evaluation Metric for Parameters Optimization in Multi-Object Tracking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…MOTA is computed based on FP, FN and IDs, and focuses more on detection performance. By comparison, IDF1 better measures the consistency of ID matching [35]. HOTA is an explicit combination of detection score DetA and association score AssA, which balances the effects of performing accurate detection and association into a single unified metric.…”
Section: A Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MOTA is computed based on FP, FN and IDs, and focuses more on detection performance. By comparison, IDF1 better measures the consistency of ID matching [35]. HOTA is an explicit combination of detection score DetA and association score AssA, which balances the effects of performing accurate detection and association into a single unified metric.…”
Section: A Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MOTA is computed based on FP, FN and IDs, and focuses more on detection performance. By comparison, IDF1 better measures the consistency of ID matching [23]. HOTA is an explicit combination of detection score DetA and association score AssA, which balances the effects of performing accurate detection and association into a single unified metric.…”
Section: Datasets and Evaluation Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unlike IDF1, there are no differences between ResNet-50 and MuDeep for re-identification; both extended-ResNet-50 and extended-MuDeep achieve an average MOTA of 62.7%. Compared to MOTA, IDF1 is better at expressing the consistency of ID matching, by measuring how long the identification is correct (Huang et al, 2020), which means that the use of MuDeep improves the ID matching of the tracked chicks. The reason why the tracking results of Sequence 3 are much worse than the results of the other two test sequences, i.e., around 30% worse in IDF1 and around 70% worse in MOTA compared to 1c, is the high number of false-positive detections.…”
Section: Mudeepmentioning
confidence: 99%