MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deepmix: Online Auto Data Augmentation for Robust Visual Object Tracking

2021· article· en· W3169647498 on OpenAlexaff
Ziyi Cheng, Xuhong Ren, Felix Juefei-Xu, Wanli Xue, Qing Guo, Lei Ma, Jianjun Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDiscriminative modelComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceVideo trackingObject (grammar)Tracking (education)Focus (optics)Eye trackingKey (lock)Computer visionOnline modelOnline learningDeep learningObject detectionMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Multimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online updating of the object model via samples from historical frames is of great importance for accurate visual object tracking. Recent works mainly focus on constructing effective and efficient updating methods while neglecting the training samples for learning discriminative object models, which is also a key part of a learning problem. In this paper, we propose the DeepMix that takes historical samples’ embeddings as input and generates augmented embeddings online, enhancing the state-of-the-art online learning methods for visual object tracking. More specifically, we first propose the online data augmentation for tracking that online augments the historical samples through object-aware filtering. Then, we propose MixNet which is an offline trained network for performing online data augmentation within one-step, enhancing the tracking accuracy while preserving high speeds of the state-of-the-art online learning methods. The extensive experiments on three different tracking frameworks, i.e., DiMP, DSiam, and SiamRPN++, and three large-scale and challenging datasets, i.e., OTB-2015, LaSOT, and VOT, demonstrate the effectiveness and advantages of the proposed method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207