2022
DOI: 10.1109/tim.2022.3178482
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correlation Filters Based on Multi-Expert and Game Theory for Visual Object Tracking

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Success Precision ULAST [41] 0.610 0.811 Spiking SiamFC++ [40] 0.644 0.854 DaHCF [42] 0.670 0.911 MEGTCF [44] 0.678 0.914 AFCSCF [43] 0.681 0.915 RPFormer [46] 0.682 0.891 DHPR [45] 0.691 0.916 ALT [47] 0.692 0.908 SiamTPN [37] 0…”
Section: Trackersmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Success Precision ULAST [41] 0.610 0.811 Spiking SiamFC++ [40] 0.644 0.854 DaHCF [42] 0.670 0.911 MEGTCF [44] 0.678 0.914 AFCSCF [43] 0.681 0.915 RPFormer [46] 0.682 0.891 DHPR [45] 0.691 0.916 ALT [47] 0.692 0.908 SiamTPN [37] 0…”
Section: Trackersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A  R  EAO  SiamSNN [25] 0.460 0.860 0.176 Siamese-RPN [26] 0.490 0.460 0.244 DHPR [45] 0.495 0.304 0.274 SiamFC [8] 0.503 0.585 0.188 MEGTCF [44] 0.505 0.314 0.278 UpdateNet [27] 0.518 0.454 0.244 DaSiamRPN+Att [28] 0.536 0.144 0.097 C-RPN [29] 0.550 0.320 0.273 BCS [31] 0.556 0.318 0.304 Spiking SiamFC++ [40] 0.556 0.445 0.255 Ours 0.559 0.323 0.304 RPFormer [46] 0.648 0.158 0.491 Trackers Success Precision ASTCA [38] 0.481 0.687 MRCF [20] 0.485 0.666 MEGTCF [44] 0.502 0.721 DHPR [45] 0.514 0.741 Spiking SiamFC++ [40] 0.578 0.744 SiamCAR [15] 0.614 0.760 SiamBAN [6] 0.631 0.833 SiamTPN [37] 0.636 0.823 UAST [50] 0.645 0.860 SiamGAT [39] 0.646 0.843 ALT [47] 0.652 0.871 Ours 0.656 0.873…”
Section: Trackersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[44] dataset is one of the most authoritative benchmarks in the feld of object tracking, containing 100 completely labeled video sequences with 11 diferent challenge attributes, including illumination variation (IV), scale variation (SV), occlusion (OCC), deformation (DEF), motion blur (MB), fast motion (FM), inplane rotation (IPR), out-of-plane rotation (OPR), outof-view (OV), background clutters (BC), and low resolution (LR). We compared the proposed algorithms to 16 topperforming deep feature-based DCF trackers (DaHCF [16], AFCSCF [17], MEGTCF [52], DeepSTRCF [30], ECO [18], CFWCR [39], and C-COT [49]), handcrafted feature-based DCF trackers (SRECF [50], DRCF [33], AutoTrack [34], BACF [14], and SAMF [13]), and deep learning-based trackers (PrDiMP-18 [51], GradNet [53], DaSiamRPN [54], and SiamFC [38]). Figure 6 shows the proposed algorithm's tracking results compared to 16 other algorithms on the OTB2015 dataset.…”
Section: Qualitative Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Te UAV also employs the OPE method to evaluate the tracker, considering both success rate and precision. We compared our tracker with 10 leading-edge trackers, including DaHCF [16], MEGTCF [52], ASRCF [21], MCCT [22], ECO [18], MRCF [11], DRCF [33], STRCF [30], BACF [14], and SAMF [13], and the evaluation results are shown in Figure 12. Compared to the most recent state-of-the-art trackers (MRCF, MEGTCF, and DaHCF), our tracker surpasses the majority of its competitors, with the best DP score (75.3%) and the second highest AUC score (51.4%).…”
Section: Uav123 Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although effective, its performance is contingent on the accuracy of the system model, which is not always guaranteed. Adaptive filtering methods like the least mean squares and Recursive least squares algorithms also offer promise but require careful selection of suitable parameters for optimal performance [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%