Evaluating deep tracking models for player tracking in broadcast ice hockey video
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracking and identifying players is an important problem in computer vision based ice hockey analytics. Player tracking is a challenging problem since the motion of players in hockey is fast-paced and non-linear. There is also significant player-player and player-board occlusion, camera panning and zooming in hockey broadcast video. Prior published research perform player tracking with the help of handcrafted features for player detection and re-identification. Although commercial solutions for hockey player tracking exist, to the best of our knowledge, no network architectures used, training data or performance metrics are publicly reported. There is currently no published work for hockey player tracking making use of the recent advancements in deep learning while also reporting the current accuracy metrics used in literature. Therefore, in this paper we compare and contrast several state-of-the-art tracking algorithms and analyze their performance and failure modes in ice hockey.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it