Cited by 2,805Video Surveillance and Tracking MethodsAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques

ECO: Efficient Convolution Operators for Tracking

Open access
Danelljan, Martin, Bhat, Goutam, Khan, Fahad Shahbaz, Felsberg, Michael·2017·2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

In recent years, Discriminative Correlation Filter (DCF) based methods have significantly advanced the state-of-the-art in tracking. However, in the pursuit of ever increasing tracking performance, their characteristic speed and real-time capability have gradually faded. Further, the increasingly complex models, with massive number of trainable parameters, have introduced the risk of severe over-fitting. In this work, we tackle the key causes behind the problems of computational complexity and over-fitting, with the aim of simultaneously improving both speed and performance. We revisit the core DCF formulation and introduce: (i) a factorized convolution operator, which drastically reduces the number of parameters in the model, (ii) a compact generative model of the training sample distribution, that significantly reduces memory and time complexity, while providing better diversity of samples, (iii) a conservative model update strategy with improved robustness and reduced complexity. We perform comprehensive experiments on four benchmarks: VOT2016, UAV123, OTB-2015, and TempleColor. When using expensive deep features, our tracker provides a 20-fold speedup and achieves a 13.0% relative gain in Expected Average Overlap compared to the top ranked method [12] in the VOT2016 challenge. Moreover, our fast variant, using hand-crafted features, operates at 60 Hz on a single CPU, while obtaining 65.0% AUC on OTB-2015.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2017.733

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Danelljan, M., Bhat, G., Khan, F. S., & Felsberg, M.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Venue
2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-07
Pages
6931-6939
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2557641257
Cited by
2,805
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 86 · 2025: 168 · 2024: 284 · 2023: 347 · 2022: 442 · 2021: 457 · 2020: 410 · 2019: 394 · 2018: 201 · 2017: 16
FWCI
81.63
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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 Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Keywords
discriminative correlation filter, object tracking, computational efficiency, overfitting, real-time tracking

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