Learn More
The Visual Object Tracking challenge 2014, VOT2014, aims at comparing short-term single-object visual trackers that do not apply pre-learned models of object appearance. Results of 38 trackers are 2 Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length presented. The number of tested trackers makes VOT 2014 the largest benchmark on short-term tracking to date. For(More)
This paper addresses the problem of tracking objects which undergo rapid and significant appearance changes. We propose a novel coupled-layer visual model that combines the target's global and local appearance by interlacing two layers. The local layer in this model is a set of local patches that geometrically constrain the changes in the target's(More)
This paper addresses the problem of single-target tracker performance evaluation. We consider the performance measures, the dataset and the evaluation system to be the most important components of tracker evaluation and propose requirements for each of them. The requirements are the basis of a new evaluation methodology that aims at a simple and easily(More)
Visual tracking has attracted a significant attention in the last few decades. The recent surge in the number of publications on tracking-related problems have made it almost impossible to follow the developments in the field. One of the reasons is that there is a lack of commonly accepted annotated data-sets and standardized evaluation protocols that would(More)
The problem of visual tracking evaluation is sporting a large variety of performance measures, and largely suffers from lack of consensus about which measures should be used in experiments. This makes the cross-paper tracker comparison difficult. Furthermore, as some measures may be less effective than others, the tracking results may be skewed or biased(More)
In the paper, we present an empirical evaluation of five feature selection methods: ReliefF, random forest feature selector, sequential forward selection, sequential backward selection, and Gini index. Among the evaluated methods, the random forest feature selector has not yet been widely compared to the other methods. In our evaluation, we test how the(More)
Community networks differ from regular networks by their organic growth patterns – there is no central planning body that would decide how the network is built. Instead, the network grows in a bottom-up fashion as more people express interest in participating in the community and connect with their neighbours. People who participate in community networks(More)