| Literature DB >> 30134621 |
Xizhe Xue1, Ying Li2, Qiang Shen.
Abstract
With the increasing availability of low-cost, commercially available unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), visual tracking using UAVs has become more and more important due to its many new applications, including automatic navigation, obstacle avoidance, traffic monitoring, search and rescue, etc. However, real-world aerial tracking poses many challenges due to platform motion and image instability, such as aspect ratio change, viewpoint change, fast motion, scale variation and so on. In this paper, an efficient object tracking method for UAV videos is proposed to tackle these challenges. We construct the fused features to capture the gradient information and color characteristics simultaneously. Furthermore, cellular automata is introduced to update the appearance template of target accurately and sparsely. In particular, a high confidence model updating strategy is developed according to the stability function. Systematic comparative evaluations performed on the popular UAV123 dataset show the efficiency of the proposed approach.Entities:
Keywords: UAV video; adaptive appearance model; cellular automata; correlation filter; visual tracking
Year: 2018 PMID: 30134621 PMCID: PMC6163504 DOI: 10.3390/s18092751
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Neighborhood structures.
Figure 2Flowchart of the proposed tracking algorithm.
Figure 3Tracking results of the adaptive appearance template updating scheme. (a) Tracking result with the original template; (b) Mask of new template obtained by CA; (c) Tracking result with the new template.
Figure 4Images and their responses of in different situation. (a) Original image without occlusion; (b) Original image with serious occlusion; (c) Response map of (a); (d) Response map of (b).
Figure 5Success (left) and precision (right) plots of proposed tracker compared with state-of-the-art approaches on UAV123 dataset.
Figure 6Success plots of our tracker compared with state-of-the-art approaches on UAV123 dataset.
Figure 7Precision plots of our tracker compared with state-of-the-art approaches on UAV123 dataset.
Overall precision rates on different attributes, where the entries in red denote the best results and the ones in green indicate the second best.
| Ours | BIT | fDSST | KCFDP | SAMF | DSST | ORVT | CNT | GOTURN | OCT_KCF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SV |
| 0.474 | 0.504 | 0.419 | 0.504 |
| 0.480 | 0.429 | 0.415 | 0.503 |
| ARC |
| 0.449 |
| 0.388 | 0.462 | 0.456 | 0.437 | 0.365 | 0.371 | 0.461 |
| LR |
| 0.383 | 0.440 | 0.372 | 0.413 | 0.452 | 0.412 | 0.405 | 0.355 |
|
| FM |
| 0.325 | 0.352 | 0.325 |
| 0.357 | 0.325 | 0.262 | 0.279 | 0.350 |
| FOC |
| 0.393 | 0.369 | 0.376 |
| 0.388 | 0.386 | 0.347 | 0.320 | 0.374 |
| POC |
| 0.452 | 0.458 | 0.422 | 0.472 |
| 0.452 | 0.386 | 0.370 | 0.450 |
| OV |
| 0.418 | 0.432 | 0.379 | 0.438 |
| 0.397 | 0.353 | 0.380 | 0.401 |
| BC | 0.404 | 0.449 | 0.421 | 0.385 | 0.435 |
|
| 0.411 | 0.414 | 0.409 |
| IV | 0.417 | 0.452 |
| 0.310 | 0.433 |
| 0.440 | 0.363 | 0.375 | 0.415 |
| VC | 0.461 | 0.458 |
| 0.403 | 0.453 | 0.469 | 0.442 | 0.407 | 0.409 |
|
| CM |
| 0.491 | 0.486 | 0.448 |
| 0.493 | 0.483 | 0.389 | 0.420 | 0.509 |
| SOB |
| 0.568 | 0.560 | 0.537 |
| 0.565 | 0.559 | 0.499 | 0.469 | 0.562 |
| Overall |
| 0.519 | 0.539 | 0.455 |
|
| 0.519 | 0.475 | 0.460 | 0.538 |
Overall success rates on different attributes, where the entries in red denote the best results and the ones in green indicate the second best.
| Ours | BIT | fDSST | KCFDP | SAMF | DSST | ORVT | CNT | GOTURN | OCT_KCF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SV |
| 0.306 |
| 0.295 | 0.359 | 0.312 | 0.344 | 0.315 | 0.269 | 0.322 |
| ARC |
| 0.293 |
| 0.262 | 0.325 | 0.286 | 0.316 | 0.262 | 0.243 | 0.300 |
| LR |
| 0.184 |
| 0.197 | 0.224 | 0.228 | 0.223 | 0.228 | 0.173 | 0.223 |
| FM |
| 0.208 | 0.244 | 0.215 |
| 0.186 | 0.235 | 0.174 | 0.168 | 0.223 |
| FOC |
| 0.200 | 0.194 | 0.202 |
| 0.200 |
| 0.171 | 0.158 | 0.195 |
| POC |
| 0.298 |
| 0.284 | 0.326 | 0.306 | 0.327 | 0.266 | 0.243 | 0.296 |
| OV |
| 0.281 |
| 0.268 | 0.312 | 0.289 | 0.311 | 0.274 | 0.266 | 0.281 |
| BC | 0.265 | 0.291 | 0.277 | 0.249 | 0.282 |
|
| 0.254 | 0.271 | 0.255 |
| IV | 0.311 | 0.301 |
| 0.209 | 0.309 | 0.307 |
| 0.245 | 0.251 | 0.284 |
| VC |
| 0.312 |
| 0.288 | 0.326 | 0.304 | 0.332 | 0.297 | 0.275 | 0.312 |
| CM |
| 0.336 | 0.369 | 0.327 |
| 0.332 | 0.363 | 0.300 | 0.289 | 0.350 |
| SOB |
| 0.364 | 0.407 | 0.378 |
| 0.362 | 0.400 | 0.338 | 0.294 | 0.358 |
| Overall |
| 0.349 |
| 0.328 | 0.396 | 0.356 | 0.379 | 0.351 | 0.311 | 0.358 |
Figure 8Tracking results of different methods on four representative sequences.
Running speed (frame per second) of each tracker on sequences from UAV123 dataset, where the entries in red denote the best results and the ones in green indicate the second best.
| Target Size | Ours | BIT | fDSST | KCFDP | SAMF | DSST | ORVT | CNT | GOTURN | OCT_KCF | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| boat6 | 27 × 16 | 33 |
| 134 | 30 | 6 |
| 32 | 0.91 | 6.10 | 116 |
| car1 | 69 × 89 | 24 |
| 62 | 43 | 7 |
| 23 | 0.75 | 8.74 | 16 |
| car2 | 39 × 21 | 31 | 105 |
| 17 | 6 | 105 | 26 | 1.00 | 0.36 |
|
| car9 | 99 × 169 | 7 | 12 | 31 | 18 | 10 | 9 |
| 0.73 | 0.42 |
|
| car14 | 43 × 68 | 14 |
|
| 36 | 5 | 38 | 17 | 0.76 | 0.65 | 21 |
| person2 | 50 × 111 | 10 |
|
| 15 | 5 | 19 | 29 | 0.82 | 1.39 | 24 |
| person6 | 33 × 95 | 11 |
|
| 22 | 6 | 33 | 27 | 1.38 | 0.71 | 20 |
| person16 | 33 × 71 | 15 |
|
| 29 | 5 | 45 | 14 | 0.75 | 12 | 40 |
| person22 | 17 × 47 | 24 | 97 |
| 46 | 6 | 92 | 28 | 0.73 | 9.46 |
|
Figure 9The success and precision plots of our tracker compared with which without adaptive appearance template updating strategy on the UAV123 dataset.