Cited by 935Video Surveillance and Tracking MethodsAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Learning Spatial-Temporal Regularized Correlation Filters for Visual Tracking

Open access
Li, Feng, Tian, Cheng, Zuo, Wangmeng, Zhang, Lei, Yang, Ming-Hsuan·2018·2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Abstract

Discriminative Correlation Filters (DCF) are efficient in visual tracking but suffer from unwanted boundary effects. Spatially Regularized DCF (SRDCF) has been suggested to resolve this issue by enforcing spatial penalty on DCF coefficients, which, inevitably, improves the tracking performance at the price of increasing complexity. To tackle online updating, SRDCF formulates its model on multiple training images, further adding difficulties in improving efficiency. In this work, by introducing temporal regularization to SRDCF with single sample, we present our spatialtemporal regularized correlation filters (STRCF). The STRCF formulation can not only serve as a reasonable approximation to SRDCF with multiple training samples, but also provide a more robust appearance model than SRDCF in the case of large appearance variations. Besides, it can be efficiently solved via the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM). By incorporating both temporal and spatial regularization, our STRCF can handle boundary effects without much loss in efficiency and achieve superior performance over SRDCF in terms of accuracy and speed. Compared with SRDCF, STRCF with hand-crafted features provides a 5× speedup and achieves a gain of 5.4% and 3.6% AUC score on OTB-2015 and Temple-Color, respectively. Moreover, STRCF with deep features also performs favorably against state-of-the-art trackers and achieves an AUC score of 68.3% on OTB-2015.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2018.00515

Cites

44 of 44 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.

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?

  • STRCF decreases computational cost while keeping promising performance.

    “In order to decrease the computational cost while keeping the promising performance, a spatial-temporal regularized correlation filter tracking scheme (STRCF) is proposed in [28].”

    From Multiple Cues-Based Robust Visual Object Tracking Method (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

  • The proposed tracking scheme achieved the highest mean distance precision of 0.889 at threshold 20 pixels, outperforming LCT, MACF, MKCF, and STRCF.

    “The proposed tracking scheme outperforms the other state-of-the-art algorithms by achieving the highest mean of 0.889.”

    From Multiple Cues-Based Robust Visual Object Tracking Method (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

  • STRCF achieved a mean overlap success rate of 0.799.

    “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 [28]

  • STRCF achieved a mean center location error of 44.89 pixels.

    “The STRCF [28] scheme achieved the mean center location error of 44.89”

    From Multiple Cues-Based Robust Visual Object Tracking Method (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

  • The proposed tracker, along with MACF and STRCF, tracks the target successfully until the end of the car1 video sequence.

    “Our proposed tracker, along with MACF [23] and STRCF [28], tracks the target successfully until the end of the video sequence.”

    From Multiple Cues-Based Robust Visual Object Tracking Method (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, F., Tian, C., Zuo, W., Zhang, L., & Yang, M.-H.
Affiliations
  • Harbin Institute of Technology (CN)
  • University of California, Merced (US)
Venue
2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-06
Pages
4904-4913
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2964069521
Cited by
935
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 100 · 2023: 127 · 2022: 169 · 2021: 162 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 11
FWCI
31.46
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61671182, 61471146)
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University
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 › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
visual object tracking, discriminative correlation filter, spatial regularization, temporal regularization, edge effects, alternating direction method of multipliers, deep features, appearance model

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