Adaptive Merging Complementary Learners for Visual Tracking Based on Probabilistic Model

Qiujie Dong; Xuedong He; Haiyan Ge; Shengzong Zhou

doi:10.3788/LOP56.161505

Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, Volume. 56, Issue 16, 161505(2019)

Adaptive Merging Complementary Learners for Visual Tracking Based on Probabilistic Model

Qiujie Dong^1,2, Xuedong He^1,2、***, Haiyan Ge^3、**, and Shengzong Zhou^1、*

Author Affiliations

¹ Fujian Institute of Research on the Structure of Matter, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Fuzhou, Fujian 350002, China

² School of Data Science, North University of China, Taiyuan, Shanxi 0 30051, China

³ College of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo, Shandong 255049, China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(10)

Fig. 1. Framework of amStaple algorithm

Download full size

Fig. 2. Tracking results of all thresholds ε on different benchmarks. (a) Precision curves; (b) success rate curves

Download full size

Fig. 3. Tracking results of nine algorithms on different benchmarks. (a) Precision for OTB-2013 benchmark; (b) success rates for OTB-2013 benchmark; (c) precision for OTB-100 benchmark; (d) success rates for OTB-100 benchmark

Download full size

Fig. 4. Seven attributes in OTB-100 benchmark sequence where amStaple has best performance. (a) Illumination variation; (b) out-of-plane rotation; (c) occlusion; (d) deformation; (e) in-plane rotation; (f) out-of-view; (g) background clutter

Download full size

Fig. 5. Qualitative comparison of top three algorithms on ten videos. (a) Bird1; (b) Bolt; (c) ClifBar; (d) coke; (e) dog; (f) dragon baby; (g) shaking; (h) girl; (i) soccer; (j) trellis

Download full size

Fig. 6. Video attribute success rate curves where amStaple1 performs better than amStaple on different benchmarks. (a) Fast motion for OTB-2013 benchmark; (b) motion blur for OTB-2013 benchmark; (c) low resolution for OTB-2013 benchmark; (d) fast motion for OTB-100 benchmark; (e) motion blur for OTB-100 benchmark; (f) low resolution for OTB-100 benchmark

Download full size

Fig. 7. Tracking effects of amStaple1 and amStaple in Deer benchmark sequence. Red is amStaple and green is amStaple1

Download full size

Table 1. Basic experimental parameter settings
View table
Table 1. Basic experimental parameter settings
Parameter Value
HOG cell size 4×4
HOG orientations 9
Learning rate (correlation filering) η_cf 0.01
#bins colour histograms n_hist 2⁵×2⁵×2⁵
Hyperparameter δ 2.22×10^-16
Hyperparameter ξ 2
Threshold θ 0.5

Table 2. Precision and success rates of amStaple and Staple on different benchmarks and percentage increases of amStaple compared to Staple
View table
Table 2. Precision and success rates of amStaple and Staple on different benchmarks and percentage increases of amStaple compared to Staple
Benchmark Criterion Staple amStaple Increase ratio /%
OTB-2013 Precision 0.782 0.833 6.52
Success rate 0.593 0.622 4.89
OTB-100 Precision 0.784 0.810 3.32
Success rate 0.579 0.597 3.11

Table 3. Comparison of success rates of amStaple and Staple on different attributes of OTB-100 benchmark

View table

Table 3. Comparison of success rates of amStaple and Staple on different attributes of OTB-100 benchmark

Attribute	Successof Staple	Success ofamStaple	Increaseratio /%
Illumination variation	0.595	0.628	5.55
Out-of-plane rotation	0.534	0.555	3.93
Scale variation	0.520	0.546	5.00
Occlusion	0.543	0.563	3.68
Deformation	0.550	0.559	1.64
Motion blur	0.540	0.558	3.33
Fast motion	0.541	0.557	2.96
In-plane rotation	0.549	0.573	4.37
Out-of-view	0.476	0.507	6.51
Background clutter	0.561	0.601	7.13
Low resolution	0.399	0.405	1.50

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Qiujie Dong, Xuedong He, Haiyan Ge, Shengzong Zhou. Adaptive Merging Complementary Learners for Visual Tracking Based on Probabilistic Model[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2019, 56(16): 161505

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Category: Machine Vision

Received: Mar. 2, 2019

Accepted: Mar. 25, 2019

Published Online: Aug. 5, 2019

The Author Email: Xuedong He (849459832@qq.com), Haiyan Ge (1178163538@qq.com), Shengzong Zhou (zhousz@fjirsm.ac.cn)

DOI:10.3788/LOP56.161505

Topics

laser devices and laser physics

Lasers and Laser Optics

Laser physics

laser manufacturing

Instrumentation, Measurement and Metrology

Table 1. Basic experimental parameter settings

Table 1. Basic experimental parameter settings

Table 2. Precision and success rates of amStaple and Staple on different benchmarks and percentage increases of amStaple compared to Staple

Table 2. Precision and success rates of amStaple and Staple on different benchmarks and percentage increases of amStaple compared to Staple

Table 3. Comparison of success rates of amStaple and Staple on different attributes of OTB-100 benchmark

Table 3. Comparison of success rates of amStaple and Staple on different attributes of OTB-100 benchmark