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 toward particular tracking aspects. In this paper, we revisit the popular performance measures and tracker performance visualizations and analyze them theoretically and experimentally. We show that several measures are equivalent from the point of information they provide for tracker comparison and, crucially, that some are more brittle than the others. Based on our analysis, we narrow down the set of potential measures to only two complementary ones, describing accuracy and robustness, thus pushing toward homogenization of the tracker evaluation methodology. These two measures can be intuitively interpreted and visualized and have been employed by the recent visual object tracking challenges as the foundation for the evaluation methodology.
Until recently the majority of papers that address performance evaluation in visual tracking were concerned with multi-target tracking scenarios @cite_26 @cite_51 @cite_39 @cite_29 @cite_36 @cite_7 @cite_50 @cite_34 @cite_44 . Single-target tracking is, at least theoretically, a special case of multi-target tracking, however, because of the nature of the target domain, there is a crucial difference in the focus of the evaluation. In multi-target tracking, the focus is on the correctness of target identity assignments for a varying number of targets as well as the accuracy of these detections. The algorithms are often focused on a particular tracking domain, which is typically people or vehicle tracking for surveillance @cite_39 @cite_29 @cite_47 , animal groups tracking @cite_6 or sports tracking @cite_9 , to name a few, which means that tracking in multi-object scenarios involves a lot of domain-specific prior knowledge. A well known PETS workshop (e.g. @cite_50 ) has also been organized yearly for more than a decade with the main focus on performance evaluation of surveillance and activity recognition algorithms.
@cite_26 @cite_7 @cite_36 @cite_29 @cite_9 @cite_6 @cite_39 @cite_44 @cite_50 @cite_47 @cite_34 @cite_51
2096590953 1904741086 1581210256 2120927021 2113926057 1485416717 2018646616 2138866680 84047417 2010866345 2141822239
Abstract Documents in computer-readable form can be used to provide information about other documents, i.e. those they cite. To do this efficiently requires procedures for computer recognition of citing statements. This is not easy, especially for multi-sentence citing statements. Computer recognition procedures have been developed which are accurate to the following extent: 73 of the words in statements selected by computer procedures as being citing statements are words which are correctly attributable to the corresponding documents. The retrieval effectiveness of computer-recognized citing statements was tested in the following way. First, for eight retrieval requests in inorganiic chemistry, average recall by search of Chemical Abstracts Service indexing and Chemical Abstracts abstract text words was found to be 50 . Words from citing statements referring to the papers to be retrieved were then added to the index terms and abstract words as additional access points, and searching was repeated. Average recall increased to 70 . Only words from citing statements published within a year of the cited papers were used. The retrieval effect of citing statement words alone (published within a year) without index or abstract terms was the following: average recall was 40 . When just the words of the titles of the cited papers were added to those citing statement words, average recall increased to 50 . A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. An overwhelming number of news articles are available every day via the internet. Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to peruse more than a handful; furthermore it is difficult to ascertain an article’s social context, i.e., is it popular, what sorts of people are reading it, etc. In this paper, we develop a system to address this problem in the restricted domain of political news by harnessing implicit and explicit contextual information from the blogosphere. Specifically, we track thousands of blogs and the news articles they cite, collapsing news articles that have highly overlapping content. We then tag each article with the number of blogs citing it, the political orientation of those blogs, and the level of emotional charge expressed in the blog posts that link to the news article. We summarize and present the results to the user via a novel visualization which displays this contextual information; the user can then find the most popular articles, the articles most cited by liberals, the articles most emotionally discussed in the political blogosphere, etc. Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ...