PreprintCited by 1,309Video Surveillance and Tracking MethodsAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyAdvanced Neural Network Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MOT16: A Benchmark for Multi-Object Tracking

Open access
Milan, Anton, Leal-Taixe, Laura, Reid, Ian, Roth, Stefan, Schindler, Konrad·2016·arXiv

Abstract

Standardized benchmarks are crucial for the majority of computer vision applications. Although leaderboards and ranking tables should not be over-claimed, benchmarks often provide the most objective measure of performance and are therefore important guides for reseach. Recently, a new benchmark for Multiple Object Tracking, MOTChallenge, was launched with the goal of collecting existing and new data and creating a framework for the standardized evaluation of multiple object tracking methods. The first release of the benchmark focuses on multiple people tracking, since pedestrians are by far the most studied object in the tracking community. This paper accompanies a new release of the MOTChallenge benchmark. Unlike the initial release, all videos of MOT16 have been carefully annotated following a consistent protocol. Moreover, it not only offers a significant increase in the number of labeled boxes, but also provides multiple object classes beside pedestrians and the level of visibility for every single object of interest.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1603.00831

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2][2] [1st Workshop on Benchmarking Multi-Target Tracking, 2015. http: //www.igp.ethz.ch/photogrammetry/bmtt2015/home.html.](http://www.igp.ethz.ch/photogrammetry/bmtt2015/home.html) -
  2. [4][4] A. Alahi, V. Ramanathan, and L. Fei-Fei. Socially-aware largescale crowd forecasting. In CVPR , 2014. -
  3. [20][20] R. Girshick. Fast R-CNN. In ICCV 2015 , 2015. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,003

Metadata

Authors
Milan, A., Leal-Taixe, L., Reid, I., Roth, S., & Schindler, K.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2291627510
Cited by
1,309
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 178 · 2023: 192 · 2022: 179 · 2021: 219 · 2020: 192 · 2019: 135 · 2018: 96 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 12
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Video Surveillance and Tracking Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
MOT16, multi-target tracking, benchmark, pedestrian tracking, video annotation, object visibility, evaluation protocol

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