Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

MambaTrack: Exploiting Dual-Enhancement for Night UAV Tracking

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read MambaTrack, a mamba-based tracker with low-light and language enhancement, claims state-of-the-art accuracy on five night UAV tracking benchmarks while running 2.8x faster than the transformer-based CiteTracker and using 50.2% less GPU…

desk verdict Solid mamba tracker with real efficiency gains, but the SOTA claim depends on language prompts that baselines never saw—so take the head-to-head numbers with a grain of salt. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15761 v2 pith:36HCUM37 submitted 2024-11-24 cs.CV

Chunhui Zhang , Li Liu , Hao Wen , Xi Zhou , Yanfeng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords nightUAVtrackingmambanetworklow-lightenhancementvision-languagestatespacemodelcross-modalfusionRetinextheoryefficient
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

MambaTrack proposes the first mamba-based tracker for night UAV tracking, combining a mamba-based low-light enhancer (MLLE) with a cross-modal mamba (CMM) network that fuses visual features with language prompts. The paper claims this dual enhancement achieves the highest AUC and mACC scores among all compared trackers on five night UAV tracking benchmarks, while running 2.8× faster than the transformer-based CiteTracker and using 50.2% less GPU memory. The authors further introduce a new vision-language night UAV tracking task by manually annotating 518 language prompts across the existing datasets. If correct, the work shows that state-space-model architectures can match or beat transformer trackers in low-light aerial tracking at a fraction of the computational cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the mamba-based low-light enhancer (MLLE) and the cross-modal mamba (CMM) network. MLLE operationalizes Retinex decomposition with an illumination estimator ($IE$) that outputs a light-up map $\bar{L}$ and feature map $F_{lu}$, plus a damage restorer ($DR$) built from illumination fusion state space models (IFSSM) that removes the corruption term $C = R\otimes(\hat{L}\otimes\bar{L}) + \hat{R}\otimes(L+\hat{L})\otimes\bar{L}$, yielding $I_{en} = I\otimes\bar{L} + DR(I\otimes\bar{L}, F_{lu})$. CMM maps visual embeddings $H_x$, $H_z$ and language embedding $H_t$ into a shared space, computes $y_m = SSM(SiLU(Conv(f_m)))$ and gates with $z_m = y_m \otimes SiLU(f_v)$, then adds the gated branches to produce language-enhanced search and template embeddings. Together they give the tracker global low-light enhancement with local detail preservation and semantic fusion, all under mamba's linear computational complexity.

What would settle it

Re-run MambaTrack on the five benchmarks with the language branch disabled (visual-only) and compare against CiteTracker and STARK50; if the AUC drops below CiteTracker's, the reported SOTA result depends on the test-time language prompts rather than the proposed architecture. Alternatively, give the same per-video language prompts to the compared trackers (e.g., by fine-tuning them on the annotated dataset) and see if the gap persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a tracker built on mamba's linear-time state space model, with a Retinex-based low-light enhancer and a language-guided cross-modal gating network, outperforms all compared visual-only and vision-language trackers on DarkTrack2021, NAT2021, NAT2021L, UAVDark70, and UAVDark135. The low-light enhancer decomposes the image as $I = (R+\hat{R})\otimes(L+\hat{L})$ per Retinex theory, estimates a light-up map $\bar{L}$ satisfying $\bar{L}\otimes L=1$, and produces $I_{en} = I\otimes\bar{L} + DR(I\otimes\bar{L}, F_{lu})$, where the damage restorer $DR$ removes noise and artifacts. The cross-modal mamba network injects language embeddings into search embeddings via gating and state space models, yielding language-enhanced features that sharpen the response map. The paper reports the best AUC of 57.2% on UAVDark135 with only 15.9M learnable parameters and 42 FPS inference, framing mamba as a more efficient backbone than transformers for night UAV tracking.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that giving MambaTrack a manually written language prompt for every test video is not extra test-time supervision that the compared trackers lack, so the SOTA accuracy claim may be unfair.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MambaTrack's efficiency numbers (42 FPS, 1142 MB GPU memory, 15.9M learnable parameters) suggest mamba-based trackers are viable for real-time UAV deployment, where transformer trackers may be too heavy.
  • The 518 manually annotated language prompts create a new vision-language night tracking benchmark task, available to the community once released.
  • The ablation study attributes 2.7–3.1% AUC gains to MLLE and 1.8–2.7% to CMM, indicating that low-light enhancement is the larger contributor to night tracking performance.
  • The attribute-based evaluation shows MambaTrack leads on fast motion, illumination variation, low resolution, occlusion, and viewpoint change, covering the main failure modes of night UAV tracking.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • In our view, a key fairness question the paper leaves open is whether the language prompts, written per test video, constitute extra test-time supervision; the SOTA comparison may be less clean if other trackers are evaluated without equivalent semantic hints.
  • Our reading of the ablation is that the low-light enhancer alone accounts for most of the improvement, so the architecture's core advantage might be in image enhancement rather than multimodal fusion; the language branch's marginal gain is smaller.
  • Because each benchmark has only 23–180 videos, the reported AUC gaps of 1–2 points could be within statistical noise; a permutation test across frames or repeated evaluation with different prompt phrasings would clarify whether the gains are robust.
  • We speculate that the same dual-enhancement recipe could transfer to other low-light vision tasks, but that extension is not explored in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MambaTrack, a mamba-based tracker for night UAV tracking that combines two enhancement mechanisms: a mamba-based low-light enhancer (MLLE) built on Retinex theory, and a cross-modal mamba (CMM) network that fuses visual features with language prompts. The authors also annotate 518 language prompts for five existing night UAV tracking datasets to enable vision-language evaluation. They report state-of-the-art AUC and mACC on these benchmarks, with 2.8x higher speed and 50.2% lower GPU memory than CiteTracker, and they release code. The internal ablations show gains from both MLLE and CMM, and the efficiency numbers are concrete, but the headline SOTA comparison is complicated by the fact that MambaTrack is the only method evaluated with per-video language prompts while the compared baselines are cited from their original papers.

Significance. If the results hold, MambaTrack would be a valuable efficient baseline for night UAV tracking, showing that a mamba-based architecture can compete with transformer-based vision-language trackers while using far fewer learnable parameters and less GPU memory. The language-prompt annotations could also serve as a useful resource for future vision-language tracking research. The paper provides a code link, component-wise ablations in Table I, and concrete efficiency numbers in Table III, which are strengths. However, the central SOTA claim is currently not established because the evaluation protocol gives MambaTrack an extra test-time language input that the compared trackers were not given, as shown by the ablation dependence on the CMM module.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-A, §III-B, Table I, Figs. 3-4] The SOTA comparison is not apples-to-apples. In §III-A the authors state that they manually annotate 518 language prompts for the night UAV datasets, and in §III-B they state that they primarily adopt tracking results of methods from original datasets. MambaTrack is therefore the only method in Figs. 3-4 that receives per-video natural-language input on these benchmarks. Table I shows that this extra input is load-bearing: on UAVDark135, Baseline+MLLE (no language) achieves 54.5 AUC, below CiteTracker's reported 55.3, and the CMM module with language prompts contributes the +2.7 AUC that lifts MambaTrack to 57.2. Since CiteTracker and JointNLT are themselves vision-language trackers, they would plausibly benefit from the same prompts. The headline claim of best AUC and mACC is not supported until the compared VL trackers are re-run under the same prompt-conditioned protocol, or a language-free comparison is reported.
  2. [§III-A] The training protocol for the language branch is unspecified. The paper states that the tracker is trained on TrackingNet, GOT-10k, LaSOT, COCO, and WebUAV-3M, but does not state whether these datasets provide language descriptions for the visual grounding part, how the CMM network is trained with paired vision-language inputs, or whether the language encoder (Mamba-130M) is frozen. Without this information, the ablation gain of the CMM in Table I cannot be interpreted, and there is a risk that the language branch is only exposed to prompts at test time. Please specify the text data used during training and the freezing or fine-tuning of the language encoder.
  3. [Table III, §III-D] The efficiency comparison is under-specified. The table reports speed and GPU memory on a single RTX A6000, but the paper does not say whether the language encoder is executed once per video or per frame, which materially affects FPS and memory numbers. It also does not state whether the values for STARK50, JointNLT, VLT_TT, and CiteTracker were re-measured in the same software environment or taken from their original papers. The 2.8x faster and 50.2% memory reduction claims require this measurement consistency.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The symbols f_m and f_v in Eqs. (6) and (7) are not defined; they presumably refer to h_m and h_v from Eq. (5), or to a different feature map. Please define all variables used in these equations.
  2. [Table I] The header P P norm is not expanded; please define P and P_norm in the table caption or in the text.
  3. [§III-A] Please state whether the low-light enhancer (MLLE) is fine-tuned during tracker training or kept frozen after being trained on LOL.
  4. [Abstract / Code availability] The GitHub link at the end of the abstract points to Awesome-Multimodal-Object-Tracking, which appears to be a collection or survey rather than a dedicated code repository for MambaTrack; please confirm that the link contains the code used in the paper.
  5. [Introduction, Contributions] The phrase the first mamba-based baseline tracker for night UAV tracking is a strong novelty claim; consider softening it to a mamba-based tracker unless a comprehensive prior-art search supports the uniqueness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MambaTrack's claimed contributions are empirical measurements and borrowed external formulations, not derivations that reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain whose output is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The low-light enhancement equations (Eqs. 1-4) are taken from external Retinex-based prior work (Retinexformer, [19]) and are not used to define the reported benchmark numbers. The tracker's performance figures in Tables I-III and Figs. 3-4 are empirical evaluations of a trained system, not quantities fitted to or defined in terms of the claimed results. The language prompts described in Section III-A are added test-time inputs, which raises a fairness concern for the SOTA comparison against baselines that did not receive such prompts, but that is an experimental-design asymmetry rather than a circular derivation or a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Self-citations in the paper (e.g., WebUAV-3M, All-in-One) appear in related work and training-data context and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The strongest claim, state-of-the-art AUC on night UAV benchmarks, is a measured outcome contingent on the prompt-conditioned evaluation protocol, not a conclusion forced by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method relies on a borrowed Retinex model, pretrained encoders, daytime training data, and unpublished manual language prompts. The largest unexplained input is the 518 test-time prompt set, which is both an assumption and an evaluation asymmetry.

free parameters (3)
  • Loss balance factors lambda_1, lambda_GIoU, lambda_focal = 5, 2, 1.5
    Hand-set weights in Eq. (8) for L1, GIoU, and focal losses; not justified by a sensitivity study.
  • Light-up feature map channel dimension d = 40
    Design choice in the illumination estimator (Section II-B) that affects enhancement quality.
  • Template and search region sizes = 128x128 and 256x256 after cropping at 22x and 42x target size
    Standard tracking hyperparameters; affect accuracy and speed, chosen without reported ablation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A low-light image I decomposes as I = (R + R_hat) * (L + L_hat), with a well-exposed reflectance R and an illumination map L (Eq. 1).
    This Retinex-based decomposition from [18], [19] is assumed without empirical validation on night UAV imagery.
  • domain assumption A light-up map L_bar exists such that L_bar * L = 1 at every pixel (Section II-B).
    Requires non-zero illumination in every pixel; invalid for fully saturated black regions, and no handling is described.
  • domain assumption Pretrained Vim-S, GPT-NeoX, and Mamba-130M encoders transfer to night UAV tracking without night-specific fine-tuning of their weights.
    The tracker is trained only on daytime data and LOL; no night UAV data is used for training, so transfer is assumed.
  • domain assumption Manually written language prompts provide consistent, useful semantic information about the target class, attributes, and environment across all test videos.
    The 518 prompts were created by the authors with no reported inter-annotator agreement or quality checks.
  • domain assumption Training on TrackingNet, GOT-10k, LaSOT, COCO, and WebUAV-3M is sufficient to learn trackers that generalize to the five night benchmarks.
    Standard practice in tracking, but the day-to-night domain gap is the central problem the paper addresses.
invented entities (1)
  • Night UAV language prompt set (518 sentences over existing datasets: NAT2021, NAT2021L, DarkTrack2021, UAVDark70, UAVDark135)
    purpose: Provide linguistic specification of target class, attributes, and environment to the cross-modal mamba network at evaluation time.
    The prompt set is newly created by the authors, not yet released, and there is no independent validation of its quality or consistency. Because the prompts are used at test time, they constitute additional supervision unavailable to baseline trackers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MambaTrack: Exploiting Dual-Enhancement for Night UAV Tracking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36HCUM37

@misc{pith2026241115761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MambaTrack: Exploiting Dual-Enhancement for Night UAV Tracking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36HCUM37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15761}
}
abstract

Night unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) tracking is impeded by the challenges of poor illumination, with previous daylight-optimized methods demonstrating suboptimal performance in low-light conditions, limiting the utility of UAV applications. To this end, we propose an efficient mamba-based tracker, leveraging dual enhancement techniques to boost night UAV tracking. The mamba-based low-light enhancer, equipped with an illumination estimator and a damage restorer, achieves global image enhancement while preserving the details and structure of low-light images. Additionally, we advance a cross-modal mamba network to achieve efficient interactive learning between vision and language modalities. Extensive experiments showcase that our method achieves advanced performance and exhibits significantly improved computation and memory efficiency. For instance, our method is 2.8$\times$ faster than CiteTracker and reduces 50.2$\%$ GPU memory. Our codes are available at \url{https://github.com/983632847/Awesome-Multimodal-Object-Tracking}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15761 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance and efficiency comparisons between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of MambaTrack. It comprises visual and language branches (left), a cross-modal mamba network (middle), and a tracking head (right). The visual branch mainly contains a mamba-based low-light enhancer and a visual mamba encoder for image enhancement and encoding, respectively. The language branch includes a tokenizer and a language mamba encoder. Then, we adopt a cross-modal mamba network for multimodal enhan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison with SOTA trackers on UAVDark70, NAT2021, NAT2021L, and DarkTrack2021 using AUC scores. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the proposed two components ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Webuav-3m: A benchmark for unveiling the power of million- scale deep uav tracking,

    C. Zhang, G. Huang, L. Liu, S. Huang, Y . Yang, X. Wan, S. Ge, and D. Tao, “Webuav-3m: A benchmark for unveiling the power of million- scale deep uav tracking,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 9186–9205, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    All-day object tracking for unmanned aerial vehicle,

    B. Li, C. Fu, F. Ding, J. Ye, and F. Lin, “All-day object tracking for unmanned aerial vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 4515–4529, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Accurate uav tracking with distance-injected overlap maximization,

    C. Zhang, S. Ge, K. Zhang, and D. Zeng, “Accurate uav tracking with distance-injected overlap maximization,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2020, pp. 565–573

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Unsupervised domain adaptation for nighttime aerial tracking,

    J. Ye, C. Fu, G. Zheng, D. P. Paudel, and G. Chen, “Unsupervised domain adaptation for nighttime aerial tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 8896–8905

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A comprehensive survey on segment anything model for vision and beyond,

    C. Zhang, L. Liu, Y . Cui, G. Huang, W. Lin, Y . Yang, and Y . Hu, “A comprehensive survey on segment anything model for vision and beyond,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08196 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Cascaded correlation refinement for robust deep tracking,

    S. Ge, C. Zhang, S. Li, D. Zeng, and D. Tao, “Cascaded correlation refinement for robust deep tracking,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1276–1288, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Distilling channels for efficient deep tracking,

    S. Ge, Z. Luo, C. Zhang, Y . Hua, and D. Tao, “Distilling channels for efficient deep tracking,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 29, pp. 2610–2621, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Segment anything for videos: A systematic survey,

    C. Zhang, Y . Cui, W. Lin, G. Huang, Y . Rong, L. Liu, and S. Shan, “Segment anything for videos: A systematic survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08315, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Darklighter: Light up the darkness for uav tracking,

    J. Ye, C. Fu, G. Zheng, Z. Cao, and B. Li, “Darklighter: Light up the darkness for uav tracking,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2021, pp. 3079–3085

    2021

  2. [10]

    Tracker meets night: A transformer enhancer for uav tracking,

    J. Ye, C. Fu, Z. Cao, S. An, G. Zheng, and B. Li, “Tracker meets night: A transformer enhancer for uav tracking,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3866–3873, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Adtrack: Target-aware dual filter learning for real-time anti-dark uav tracking,

    B. Li, C. Fu, F. Ding, J. Ye, and F. Lin, “Adtrack: Target-aware dual filter learning for real-time anti-dark uav tracking,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2021, pp. 496– 502

    2021

  4. [12]

    Progressive domain-style translation for nighttime tracking,

    J. Zhang, Z. Li, R. Wei, and Y . Wang, “Progressive domain-style translation for nighttime tracking,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2023, pp. 7324–7334

    2023

  5. [13]

    Visible-thermal uav tracking: A large-scale benchmark and new baseline,

    P. Zhang, J. Zhao, D. Wang, H. Lu, and X. Ruan, “Visible-thermal uav tracking: A large-scale benchmark and new baseline,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 8886–8895

    2022

  6. [14]

    Joint visual grounding and tracking with natural language specification,

    L. Zhou, Z. Zhou, K. Mao, and Z. He, “Joint visual grounding and tracking with natural language specification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 23 151–23 160

    2023

  7. [15]

    Citetracker: Correlating image and text for visual tracking,

    X. Li, Y . Huang, Z. He, Y . Wang, H. Lu, and M.-H. Yang, “Citetracker: Correlating image and text for visual tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 9974–9983

    2023

  8. [16]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,

    A. Gu and T. Dao, “Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00752 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    All in one: Exploring unified vision-language tracking with multi-modal alignment,

    C. Zhang, X. Sun, Y . Yang, L. Liu, Q. Liu, X. Zhou, and Y . Wang, “All in one: Exploring unified vision-language tracking with multi-modal alignment,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2023, pp. 5552–5561

    2023

  10. [18]

    The retinex theory of color vision,

    E. H. Land, “The retinex theory of color vision,” Scientific American , vol. 237, no. 6, pp. 108–129, 1977

    1977

  11. [19]

    Retinex- former: One-stage retinex-based transformer for low-light image en- hancement,

    Y . Cai, H. Bian, J. Lin, H. Wang, R. Timofte, and Y . Zhang, “Retinex- former: One-stage retinex-based transformer for low-light image en- hancement,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 12 504–12 513

    2023

  12. [20]

    Retinexmamba: Retinex-based mamba for low-light image enhancement,

    J. Bai, Y . Yin, and Q. He, “Retinexmamba: Retinex-based mamba for low-light image enhancement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03349, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Robust deep tracking with two-step augmentation discriminative correlation filters,

    C. Zhang, S. Ge, Y . Hua, and D. Zeng, “Robust deep tracking with two-step augmentation discriminative correlation filters,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo , 2019, pp. 1774– 1779

    2019

  14. [22]

    Pan-mamba: Effective pan-sharpening with state space model,

    X. He, K. Cao, K. Yan, R. Li, C. Xie, J. Zhang, and M. Zhou, “Pan-mamba: Effective pan-sharpening with state space model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12192, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mamba- fetrack: Frame-event tracking via state space model,

    J. Huang, S. Wang, S. Wang, Z. Wu, X. Wang, and B. Jiang, “Mamba- fetrack: Frame-event tracking via state space model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18174, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    1d convolutional neural networks and applications: A survey,

    S. Kiranyaz, O. Avci, O. Abdeljaber, T. Ince, M. Gabbouj, and D. J. Inman, “1d convolutional neural networks and applications: A survey,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing , vol. 151, p. 107398, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning,

    S. Elfwing, E. Uchibe, and K. Doya, “Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning,” Neural Networks, vol. 107, pp. 3–11, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Language modeling with gated convolutional networks,

    Y . N. Dauphin, A. Fan, M. Auli, and D. Grangier, “Language modeling with gated convolutional networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017, pp. 933–941

    2017

  19. [27]

    Joint feature learning and relation modeling for tracking: A one-stream framework,

    B. Ye, H. Chang, B. Ma, S. Shan, and X. Chen, “Joint feature learning and relation modeling for tracking: A one-stream framework,” in European Conference on Computer Vision , 2022, pp. 341–357

    2022

  20. [28]

    Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bound- ing box regression,

    H. Rezatofighi, N. Tsoi, J. Gwak, A. Sadeghian, I. Reid, and S. Savarese, “Generalized intersection over union: A metric and a loss for bound- ing box regression,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2019, pp. 658–666

    2019

  21. [29]

    Focal loss for dense object detection,

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , 2017, pp. 2980–2988

    2017

  22. [30]

    Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model,

    L. Zhu, B. Liao, Q. Zhang, X. Wang, W. Liu, and X. Wang, “Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model,” International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    GPT-NeoX: Large Scale Autoregressive Language Modeling in PyTorch,

    A. Andonian, Q. Anthony, S. Biderman, S. Black, P. Gali, L. Gao, E. Hallahan, J. Levy-Kramer, C. Leahy, L. Nestler, K. Parker, M. Pieler, J. Phang, S. Purohit, H. Schoelkopf, D. Stander, T. Songz, C. Tigges, B. Th ´erien, P. Wang, and S. Weinbach, “GPT-NeoX: Large Scale Autore...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhancement,

    C. Wei, W. Wang, W. Yang, and J. Liu, “Deep retinex decomposition for low-light enhancement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.04560 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Track- ingnet: A large-scale dataset and benchmark for object tracking in the wild,

    M. Muller, A. Bibi, S. Giancola, S. Alsubaihi, and B. Ghanem, “Track- ingnet: A large-scale dataset and benchmark for object tracking in the wild,” in European Conference on Computer Vision, 2018, pp. 300–317

    2018

  26. [34]

    Got-10k: A large high-diversity benchmark for generic object tracking in the wild,

    L. Huang, X. Zhao, and K. Huang, “Got-10k: A large high-diversity benchmark for generic object tracking in the wild,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1562– 1577, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Lasot: A high-quality benchmark for large-scale single object tracking,

    H. Fan, L. Lin, F. Yang, P. Chu, G. Deng, S. Yu, H. Bai, Y . Xu, C. Liao, and H. Ling, “Lasot: A high-quality benchmark for large-scale single object tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2019, pp. 5374–5383

    2019

  28. [36]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,

    T.-Y . Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll ´ar, and C. L. Zitnick, “Microsoft coco: Common objects in context,” in European Conference on Computer Vision , 2014, pp. 740– 755

    2014

  29. [37]

    Learning spatio-temporal transformer for visual tracking,

    B. Yan, H. Peng, J. Fu, D. Wang, and H. Lu, “Learning spatio-temporal transformer for visual tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 10 448–10 457

    2021

  30. [38]

    Mixformerv2: Efficient fully transformer tracking,

    Y . Cui, T. Song, G. Wu, and L. Wang, “Mixformerv2: Efficient fully transformer tracking,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Divert more attention to vision- language tracking,

    M. Guo, Z. Zhang, H. Fan, and L. Jing, “Divert more attention to vision- language tracking,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 4446–4460, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Hift: Hierarchical feature transformer for aerial tracking,

    Z. Cao, C. Fu, J. Ye, B. Li, and Y . Li, “Hift: Hierarchical feature transformer for aerial tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 15 457–15 466

    2021

  33. [41]

    High performance visual tracking with siamese region proposal network,

    B. Li, J. Yan, W. Wu, Z. Zhu, and X. Hu, “High performance visual tracking with siamese region proposal network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 8971–8980

    2018

  34. [42]

    Learning discrim- inative model prediction for tracking,

    G. Bhat, M. Danelljan, L. V . Gool, and R. Timofte, “Learning discrim- inative model prediction for tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 6182–6191

    2019

  35. [43]

    Efficient siamese network for uav tracking,

    X. Zhang, D. Wang, and X. Ma, “Efficient siamese network for uav tracking,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.