Cited by 156Video Surveillance and Tracking MethodsAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Adaptive Correlation Filters with Long-Term and Short-Term Memory for Object Tracking

Open access
Ma, Chao, Huang, Jia-Bin, Yang, Xiaokang, Yang, Ming-Hsuan·2018·International Journal of Computer Vision

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11263-018-1076-4

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LCT achieved a mean overlap success rate of 0.717.

    “while the remaining three trackers, i.e., STRCF [28], LCT [21], and MKCF [5], have a mean overlap success rate of 0.799, 0.717, and 0.645, respectively.”

    From Multiple Cues-Based Robust Visual Object Tracking Method (2022) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Introduction (p. 2) describes the authors’ tracker, supporting the citation’s identification of LCT. The overlap-success results in Overall Performance (pp. 12–13) do not report a mean rate of 0.717 for it, so the numerical part of the claim is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the suitcase_ce sequence, MKCF shows similar performance to the proposed algorithm, whereas MACF, STRCF, and LCT were unable to track the correct object.

    “MKCF [5] showed a similar performance to our proposed algorithm on this sequence, whereas MACF [23], STRCF [28], and LCT [21] were unable to track the correct object.”

    From Multiple Cues-Based Robust Visual Object Tracking Method (2022) · cites this paper as [21]

  • LCT achieved a mean center location error of 70.797 pixels.

    “LCT [21] and MKCF [5] showed similar performance in terms of center location error by achieving 70.797 and 79.782 values, respectively.”

    From Multiple Cues-Based Robust Visual Object Tracking Method (2022) · cites this paper as [21]

    Section 6.8 (p. 18) says the paper compares trackers’ center location errors, and the Figure 19 caption (p. 19) describes those results. Neither passage gives a mean error of 70.797 pixels for LCT. Searches for the exact value, LCT, and mean center location error found no passage verifying the claimed number. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LCT lost the target in frame 500 of the car1 sequence.

    “LCT [21] lost the target in frame number 500”

    From Multiple Cues-Based Robust Visual Object Tracking Method (2022) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Qualitative Evaluation (pp. 16–18) discusses tracking failures on other sequences, but does not report LCT losing the target on car1 at frame 500. Searches for “car1,” “LCT,” and “frame 500” found no passage establishing that event in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the microbike_ce sequence, LCT fails at the start of the video sequence (frame 50).

    “In this sequence, LCT [21] fails at the start of the video sequence, which can be seen in frame number 50.”

    From Multiple Cues-Based Robust Visual Object Tracking Method (2022) · cites this paper as [21]

    The qualitative evaluations (pp. 16, 18–19) discuss failures on other sequences but do not address microbike_ce or frame 50. Searches for “microbike_ce” and “LCT” found no passage documenting the claimed failure. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ma, C., Huang, J.-B., Yang, X., & Yang, M.-H.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • University of California, Merced (US)
Corresponding author
Yang, Ming-Hsuan
Venue
International Journal of Computer Vision
Published
2018-03-16
Volume
126
Issue
8
Pages
771-796
ISSN
  • 0920-5691 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1405
OpenAlex
W2735270199
Cited by
156
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
12.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Computer Vision (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Division of Computing and Communication Foundations (1149783)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Video Surveillance and Tracking Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
object tracking, long-term memory, short-term memory, kernelized correlation filter, feature pyramid, tracking failure recovery, occlusion, sliding window detection, learning rate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review