UncertaintyTrack: Exploiting Detection and Localization Uncertainty in Multi-Object Tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-object tracking (MOT) methods have seen a significant boost in performance recently, due to strong interest from the research community and steadily improving object detection methods. The majority of tracking methods, which follow the tracking-by-detection (TBD) paradigm, blindly trust the incoming detections with no sense of their associated localization uncertainty. This lack of uncertainty awareness poses a problem in safety-critical tasks such as autonomous driving where passengers could be put at risk due to erroneous detections that have propagated to downstream tasks, including MOT. While there are existing works in probabilistic object detection that predict the localization uncertainty around the boxes, no work in 2D MOT for autonomous driving has studied whether these estimates are meaningful enough to be leveraged effectively in object tracking. We introduce UncertaintyTrack, a collection of extensions that can be applied to multiple TBD trackers to account for localization uncertainty estimates from probabilistic object detectors. Experiments on the Berkeley Deep Drive MOT dataset show that the combination of our method and informative uncertainty estimates reduces the number of ID switches by around 19% and improves mMOTA by 2-3%. The source code is available at https://github.com/TRAILab/UncertaintyTrack
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".