Modular Decomposition and Analysis of Registration Based Trackers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a new way to study registration based trackers by decomposing them into three constituent sub modules:appearance model, state space model and search method. It is often the case that when a new tracker is introduced in literature, it only contributes to one or two of these sub modules while using existing methods for the rest. Since these are often selected arbitrarily by the authors, they may not be optimal for the new method. In such cases, this breakdown can help to experimentally find the best combination of methods for these sub modules while also providing a framework within which the contributions of the new tracker can be clearly demarcated and thus studied better. We show how existing trackers can be broken down using the suggested methodology and compare the performance of the default configuration chosen by the authors against other possible combinations to demonstrate the new insights that can be gained by such an approach. We also present an open source system that provides a convenient interface to plug in a new method for any sub module and test it against all possible combinations of methods for the other two sub modules while also serving as a fast and efficient solution for practical tracking requirements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".