MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130026429 · doi:10.1109/iccvw.2015.79

The Visual Object Tracking VOT2015 Challenge Results

2015· preprint· en· W2130026429 on OpenAlexaff
Matej Kristan, Jiřı́ Matas, Aleš Leonardis, Michael Felsberg, Gustavo J. Fernández, Tomáš Vojíř, G Hager, Georg Nebehay, Roman Pflugfelder, Abhinav Gupta, Adel Bibi, Alan Lukežič, Álvaro García‐Martín, Amir Saffari, Alfredo Petrosino, Andrés Solís Montero

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RSEuropean Commission
KeywordsBitTorrent trackerComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligenceEye trackingObject (grammar)Computer visionVideo trackingFrame (networking)Tracking (education)Bounding overwatchTerm (time)AnnotationVisualizationMinimum bounding boxObject detectionPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Visual Object Tracking challenge 2015, VOT2015, aims at comparing short-term single-object visual trackers that do not apply pre-learned models of object appearance. Results of 62 trackers are presented. The number of tested trackers makes VOT 2015 the largest benchmark on short-term tracking to date. For each participating tracker, a short description is provided in the appendix. Features of the VOT2015 challenge that go beyond its VOT2014 predecessor are: (i) a new VOT2015 dataset twice as large as in VOT2014 with full annotation of targets by rotated bounding boxes and per-frame attribute, (ii) extensions of the VOT2014 evaluation methodology by introduction of a new performance measure. The dataset, the evaluation kit as well as the results are publicly available at the challenge website.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.015

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations705
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207