Improving tracking with a tracklet associator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple object tracking (MOT) is a task in computer vision that aims to detect the position of various objects in videos and to associate them to a unique identity. We propose an approach based on Constraint Programming <tex>$(CP)$</tex> whose goal is to be grafted to any existing tracker in order to improve its object association results. We developed a modular algorithm divided into three independent phases. The first phase consists in recovering the tracklets pro-vided by a base tracker and to cut them at the places where uncertain associations are spotted, for exam-ple, when tracklets overlap, which may cause identity switches. In the second phase, we associate the previ-ously constructed tracklets using a Belief Propagation Constraint Programming algorithm, where we pro-pose various constraints that assign scores to each of the tracklets based on multiple characteristics, such as their dynamics or the distance between them in time and space. Finally, the third phase is a rudimen-tary interpolation model to fill in the remaining holes in the trajectories we built. Experiments show that our model leads to improvements in the results for all three of the state-of-the-art trackers on which we tested it (3 to 4 points gained on HOTA and IDF1).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".