Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Towards Continuous Home Cage Monitoring: An Evaluation of Tracking and Identification Strategies for Laboratory Mice

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Group-housed mice can be tracked and identified 24/7 by a three-stage pipeline that reads custom ear tags, reaching 95.28% ID accuracy on held-out home-cage video.

desk verdict A plausible and useful engineering integration for home-cage mouse tracking, with a thinner and more domain-dependent evaluation than the abstract claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07929 v1 pith:Z5ZG5AYZ submitted 2025-07-10 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Juan Pablo Oberhauser , Daniel Grzenda This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords mousetrackingeartagidentificationhomecagemonitoringmulti-objectfine-grainedimageclassificationvisiontransformerconstraintprogramminglaboratoryanimalwelfare
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

The paper tries to show that continuous, individual-level monitoring of group-housed laboratory mice in their home cage is practical with a real-time vision pipeline that reads custom ear tags. The pipeline combines a motion-and-appearance tracker, a transformer-based ear-tag classifier, and a constraint solver that assigns each tracklet to one of the three mice. On a held-out 100-minute dataset spanning three mouse strains, three bedding types, enrichment, and both light and dark cycles, it reports 95.28% identity accuracy and 2.06 identity switches per minute, far below the comparison trackers. If this holds outside the test platform, the main obstacle to 24/7 automated phenotyping—knowing which mouse did what—is removed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the custom RapID ear tag, a tag worn in each ear with a four-square pattern of black or white squares; in a three-mouse cage the three tags are red barred, black all-filled, and brown checkered. The machinery is the three-stage pipeline built around it. MouseTracks is a SORT-style tracker that combines Kalman-filter motion cues with appearance features via a weighted cost matrix, with the best weights being 0.9 for motion and 0.1 for appearance. Mouseformer is a CoAtNet vision transformer trained for fine-grained classification of the ear-tag class, and its penultimate representation doubles as the appearance vector for tracking. MouseMap is a constraint-programming assignment step, formulated as the hotel room problem, that maximizes the summed classifier confidence to assign tracklets to the finite set of cage identities and merges overlapping short tracklets when there are more hypotheses than mice.

What would settle it

Run the trained pipeline, without retraining, on a home-cage video set from a different camera system, cage size, bedding, or mouse strain, with the same ear tags, and measure ID accuracy and switches per minute. If ID accuracy falls toward the no-read rate or switches exceed those of the SLEAP/DeepLabCut baselines on the same video, the central claim fails as a general method and holds only on the training platform.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a dedicated ear-tag classifier combined with a global tracklet-to-ID assignment step, rather than a generic re-identification embedding, is what makes individual identification work in dense home cages. The pipeline's tracker, MouseTracks, links mHydra detections into tracklets using Kalman-filtered motion cues and cosine-similarity appearance features; the appearance features come from the same network that classifies the ear tag, so no separate re-ID model is needed. Mouseformer, a CoAtNet vision transformer trained on 86,513 labeled crops, predicts the ear-tag class of each crop, and MouseMap, a constraint-programming solver, assigns each tracklet to the identity that maximizes summed classification confidence, stitching over short tracklet breaks when the constraints are over-subscribed. In the experiments, the full system outperforms SLEAP- and DeepLabCut-based baselines on the held-out set, reaching 95.28% overall ID accuracy, an identity F1 (IDF1) of 88.01, multi-object tracking accuracy (MOTA) of 91.92, and 2.06 ID switches per minute.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that the detector and classifier, trained on video from the Envision platform, will work as well on other cameras, cage layouts, bedding, and mouse strains as they do on the Envision-captured validation set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Individual behavioral and physiological time series become available for group-housed mice around the clock, including the dark cycle, so disease progression and treatment effects can be followed continuously instead of during light-cycle spot checks.
  • With roughly 95% of identity decisions correct and only about two switches per minute, per-mouse behavioral summaries from tracklets become reliable enough for downstream biomarker studies.
  • A physical marker plus a dedicated fine-grained classifier beats generic re-identification embeddings in this setting, so future systems can keep the marker-reader separation rather than relying on whole-body appearance.
  • Because the pipeline runs at 30 frames per second, it can monitor cages continuously without storing all video, enabling real-time alerts and closed-loop experimental designs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method's cross-platform generality is unproven: since training and validation both come from the Envision platform, the same pipeline on other camera hardware or cage setups could show smaller gains; this is my inference, not a claim the paper tests.
  • The architecture could be ported to other identity markers the paper lists as future work (tail tattoos, fur patterns) by swapping the classifier's target, with the tracking and assignment stages unchanged.
  • The reported accuracy probably depends on MouseMap surviving long stretches where tags are occluded or have fallen off (the paper reports 33% of detections lack a readable tag), so the method's margin is in the global assignment step, not per-frame classification.
  • A natural stress test is five-mouse housing, where more occlusion and more identities will raise the chance that two mice swap tracklets; the hotel-room formulation scales, but the per-frame classifier accuracy may not.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a complete pipeline for tracking and identifying group-housed laboratory mice in home cages, consisting of a SORT-style tracker (MouseTracks) that fuses motion and appearance cues, a CoAtNet-based ear-tag classifier (Mouseformer) that also supplies appearance embeddings, and a constraint-programming solver (MouseMap) that assigns final identities to tracklets. The authors evaluate this pipeline against SLEAP and DeepLabCut baselines on a 100-minute, three-mouse validation set captured with the Envision platform, reporting higher IDF1 (88.01 vs. 76.16), higher MOTA (91.92 vs. 84.54), and fewer ID switches (2.06 vs. 11.94 compared with mHydra + SLEAP), together with an overall ID accuracy of 95.28%.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper is a useful step toward continuous individual-level monitoring of group-housed laboratory mice, with a system that integrates detection, tracking, classification, and global assignment in a realistic setting. The explicit comparison with SLEAP and DeepLabCut on a held-out dataset is potentially valuable, and the description of the custom ear-tag scheme and the three-stage pipeline is clear. However, the current evidence is insufficient to support the abstract's generalization claims, and the uncontrolled comparison limits the strength of the conclusions. The paper does not release code or data, which further hampers independent verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The comparison is confounded by unequal access to the evaluation domain. The proposed pipeline uses mHydra, a detector trained on Envision-collected images (Ref. [25]), and Mouseformer, trained on 86,513 Envision mouse crops (Section 4.1), while the SLEAP and DeepLabCut baselines use SuperAnimal pretrained weights and receive no Envision-specific fine-tuning, including in the mH + SLEAP condition. The large reduction in ID switches (2.06 vs. 11.94) may therefore reflect an advantage from having been trained on the evaluation distribution rather than an inherent algorithmic advantage of the tracker or assignment method. Please add baselines that are fine-tuned on Envision data, or clearly state that this is an end-to-end system comparison rather than an algorithmic one.
  2. [Section 4.2] The 'overall ID accuracy of 95.28%' is not tied to a defined protocol. Section 3.2 states that for 33% of all detections the ear tags are either not visible or have fallen off, and it is unclear whether these detections are excluded, counted as errors, or handled by MouseMap's tracklet-level voting. Please define whether accuracy is computed per frame, per tracklet, or per annotated object, and report accuracy separately for detections with visible tags, 'noread' tags, and missing tags.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.1] The claim of improved performance 'across mouse strains and various environmental factors' is not supported by the evaluation design. The validation set is a single 100-minute video from one cage type (DAX3) with three mice. Although the authors state that this period covers different strains, bedding, enrichment, and lighting, no per-condition breakdown is reported, so one cannot assess whether the method's advantage holds across all listed conditions or is driven by a subset. Please provide results broken down by condition, or temper the claim in the abstract.
  4. [Section 4.2, Table 1] No error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated runs are reported. With a single 100-minute evaluation, the differences in MOTA (91.92 vs. 91.03) and in ID switches (2.06 vs. 11.94) cannot be judged for statistical significance. I recommend reporting per-minute metric distributions or at least the range across labeled segments.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1.1] The tracker is called 'MouseTracker' here but 'MouseTracks' in the abstract, Figure 1, and Section 3.1; please use a consistent name throughout.
  2. [Section 3.2.2 / Section 4.1] The classifier has five classes, including 'noread' and 'no-eartag', but Figure 2 shows only three tag patterns; please clarify how the two non-tag classes relate to the three mouse identities and whether they are used in the final assignment.
  3. [Section 3.3] The pre-solver merge step is described only as 'merg[ing] hypotheses that overlap in space but not in time'; please specify the stitching criterion (e.g., IoU threshold and maximum temporal gap) to make the method reproducible.
  4. [Figure 4] The curves are labeled 'MCAM 2+3' and 'MCAM 3', but the acronym MCAM is not defined anywhere in the text.
  5. [General] The paper does not include a data or code availability statement; making the labeled 100-minute dataset and trained weights available would significantly strengthen reproducibility.
  6. [Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, including 'trackets' in Section 3.1.1, 'Envison' in the Figure 3 caption, and inconsistent capitalization of 'Mousemap'/'MouseMap'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation chain to be circular; the paper is an empirical benchmark whose main caveat is same-platform training/validation and mild self-citation, not logical circularity.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical evaluation, not a derivation, so the circularity patterns mostly do not apply. The pipeline uses the authors' own mHydra detector (Ref. 25) and a Mouseformer classifier trained on Envision-collected crops, and the 100-minute validation set is also Envision DAX3 footage with the same ear tags and cage equipment. This means the reported 95.28% ID accuracy and the low ID-switch count in Table 1 are measured on the platform used to develop the method. That is a domain-match confound and a mild self-citation concern, but it is not circular: the held-out validation set is labeled independently, the ID classifier is trained on a distinct crop set, and external baselines (SuperAnimal + SLEAP/DLC) were run in the same benchmark. No equation or claimed prediction reduces to its inputs by construction; the hyperparameter lambda is tuned but not renamed as a prediction. The claim of generalization 'across mouse strains and various environmental factors' is broader than the single 100-minute validation set supports, but that is an overclaiming or correctness issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities such as particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. MouseTracks, Mouseformer, and MouseMap are named software components, not invented physical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are the domain assumptions about tracklet continuity, appearance similarity, tag readability, and platform transferability.

free parameters (2)
  • Association weight lambda = 0.9 motion, 0.1 appearance
    Chosen by tuning in Section 3.2.1; no sensitivity analysis is provided, and it directly affects tracker assignment and ID-switch counts.
  • Tracklet hypothesis limit in MouseMap pre-solver = 3
    Section 3.3 keeps the three most probable tracklet hypotheses when constraints are infeasible. The choice matches the cage population and is not varied or justified with sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Detection boxes that are close in time and space belong to the same identity.
    Stated in Section 3.1.1 as the motion-cue assumption; can fail during fast movement or heavy occlusion.
  • domain assumption A mouse at time t is more similar in appearance to itself at time t-1 than to its cage mates.
    Stated in Section 3.2.1 and explicitly called weaker because of clonal mouse colonies.
  • domain assumption Per-frame ear-tag predictions plus tracklet-level utility maximization recover identity even though tags are unreadable in about 33% of detections.
    Section 3.2 reports the 33% no-read or no-tag rate; the paper does not describe how missing tag information is handled beyond the final assignment step.
  • domain assumption mHydra detector outputs and Mouseformer predictions trained on Envision images are representative of the 100-minute validation set and of other cages.
    Section 4.1 says both training and validation data come from the Envision platform; no cross-platform validation is presented.
  • standard math Kalman filter motion modeling, Hungarian assignment, and the constraint-programming solver produce correct optimal matches under the defined costs.
    Standard algorithms cited in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.3; correctness is assumed, not formally verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Continuous Home Cage Monitoring: An Evaluation of Tracking and Identification Strategies for Laboratory Mice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5ZG5AYZ

@misc{pith2026250707929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Continuous Home Cage Monitoring: An Evaluation of Tracking and Identification Strategies for Laboratory Mice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5ZG5AYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07929}
}
read the original abstract

Continuous, automated monitoring of laboratory mice enables more accurate data collection and improves animal welfare through real-time insights. Researchers can achieve a more dynamic and clinically relevant characterization of disease progression and therapeutic effects by integrating behavioral and physiological monitoring in the home cage. However, providing individual mouse metrics is difficult because of their housing density, similar appearances, high mobility, and frequent interactions. To address these challenges, we develop a real-time identification (ID) algorithm that accurately assigns ID predictions to mice wearing custom ear tags in digital home cages monitored by cameras. Our pipeline consists of three parts: (1) a custom multiple object tracker (MouseTracks) that combines appearance and motion cues from mice; (2) a transformer-based ID classifier (Mouseformer); and (3) a tracklet associator linear program to assign final ID predictions to tracklets (MouseMap). Our models assign an animal ID based on custom ear tags at 30 frames per second with 24/7 cage coverage. We show that our custom tracking and ID pipeline improves tracking efficiency and lowers ID switches across mouse strains and various environmental factors compared to current mouse tracking methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07929 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Custom ear tags for mouse identification. Patterns used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of the tracking and identification pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of triple-housed mice in the Envison system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance of ID classification models across two dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    An integrated and scalable rodent cage system enabling continuous computer vision-based behav- ioral analysis and ai-enhanced digital biomarker develop- ment

    Timothy L Robertson, Michael Ellis, Natalie Bratcher- Petersen, Manuel E Ruidiaz, Kevin Harada, Debra Toburen, Juan Pablo Oberhauser, Daniel Grzenda, Nicole E Peltier, Madison Raza, et al. An integrated and scalable rodent cage system enabling continuous computer vision-based behav- ioral analysis and ai-enhanced digital biomarker develop- ment. bioRxiv, ...

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Tracking without bells and whistles

    Philipp Bergmann, Tim Meinhardt, and Laura Leal-Taixe. Tracking without bells and whistles. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 941–951, 2019. 1

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Animal identification systems used for mice

    JDVM Cadillac. Animal identification systems used for mice. JAX Notes, 2006. 2

    work page 2006

  4. [3]

    Observation-centric sort: Rethink- ing sort for robust multi-object tracking

    Jinkun Cao, Jiangmiao Pang, Xinshuo Weng, Rawal Khi- rodkar, and Kris Kitani. Observation-centric sort: Rethink- ing sort for robust multi-object tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9686–9696, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Smart rfid antenna system for indoor tracking and behavior analysis of small animals in colony cages

    Luca Catarinucci, Riccardo Colella, Luca Mainetti, Luigi Pa- trono, Stefano Pieretti, Ilaria Sergi, and Luciano Tarricone. Smart rfid antenna system for indoor tracking and behavior analysis of small animals in colony cages. IEEE Sensors Journal, 14(4):1198–1206, 2013. 1, 2

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    Person re-identification by multi-channel parts-based cnn with improved triplet loss function

    De Cheng, Yihong Gong, Sanping Zhou, Jinjun Wang, and Nanning Zheng. Person re-identification by multi-channel parts-based cnn with improved triplet loss function. In Pro- ceedings of the iEEE conference on computer vision and pat- tern recognition, pages 1335–1344, 2016. 1

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Coatnet: Marrying convolution and attention for all data sizes

    Zihang Dai, Hanxiao Liu, Quoc V Le, and Mingxing Tan. Coatnet: Marrying convolution and attention for all data sizes. Advances in neural information processing systems , 34:3965–3977, 2021. 3

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Housing, husbandry and handling of rodents for behavioral experiments

    Robert MJ Deacon. Housing, husbandry and handling of rodents for behavioral experiments. Nature protocols, 1(2): 936–946, 2006. 2

    work page 2006

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Metaformer: A unified meta framework for fine-grained recognition

    Qishuai Diao, Yi Jiang, Bin Wen, Jia Sun, and Zehuan Yuan. Metaformer: A unified meta framework for fine-grained recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02751, 2022. 3

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint a...

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Strongsort: Make deep- sort great again

    Yunhao Du, Zhicheng Zhao, Yang Song, Yanyun Zhao, Fei Su, Tao Gong, and Hongying Meng. Strongsort: Make deep- sort great again. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 25: 8725–8737, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  4. [11]

    Pymousetracks: flexible computer vision and rfid-based system for multiple mouse tracking and be- havioral assessment

    Tony Fong, Hao Hu, Pankaj Gupta, Braeden Jury, and Tim- othy H Murphy. Pymousetracks: flexible computer vision and rfid-based system for multiple mouse tracking and be- havioral assessment. eneuro, 10(5), 2023. 1

    2023

  5. [12]

    Siou loss: More powerful learning for bounding box regression

    Zhora Gevorgyan. Siou loss: More powerful learning for bounding box regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12740,

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Automatic visual tracking and social be- haviour analysis with multiple mice

    Luca Giancardo, Diego Sona, Huiping Huang, Sara Sannino, Francesca Manag`o, Diego Scheggia, Francesco Papaleo, and Vittorio Murino. Automatic visual tracking and social be- haviour analysis with multiple mice. PloS one, 8(9):e74557,

  7. [14]

    Increasing modeling language convenience with a universal n-dimensional array, cppy as python-embedded example

    Tias Guns. Increasing modeling language convenience with a universal n-dimensional array, cppy as python-embedded example. In Proceedings of the 18th workshop on Constraint Modelling and Reformulation at CP (Modref 2019), 2019. 4

    2019

  8. [15]

    Damm for the detection and tracking of multiple animals within complex social and environmental settings

    Gaurav Kaul, Jonathan McDevitt, Justin Johnson, and Ada Eban-Rothschild. Damm for the detection and tracking of multiple animals within complex social and environmental settings. Scientific Reports, 14(1):21366, 2024. 2

    2024

  9. [16]

    Multi-animal pose estimation, identification and track- ing with deeplabcut

    Jessy Lauer, Mu Zhou, Shaokai Ye, William Menegas, Stef- fen Schneider, Tanmay Nath, Mohammed Mostafizur Rah- man, Valentina Di Santo, Daniel Soberanes, Guoping Feng, et al. Multi-animal pose estimation, identification and track- ing with deeplabcut. Nature Methods, 19(4):496–...

    2022

  10. [17]

    Enhanced multi-object tracking: Inferring motion states of tracked objects

    Pan Liao, Feng Yang, Di Wu, Bo Liu, Xingle Zhang, and Shangjun Zhou. Enhanced multi-object tracking: Inferring motion states of tracked objects. ACM Transactions on Mul- timedia Computing, Communications and Applications , 21 (1):1–25, 2024. 1

    2024

  11. [18]

    Linear assignment prob- lems

    Silvano Martello and Paolo Toth. Linear assignment prob- lems. In North-Holland Mathematics Studies , pages 259–

  12. [19]

    Deeplabcut: markerless pose estima- tion of user-defined body parts with deep learning

    Alexander Mathis, Pranav Mamidanna, Kevin M Cury, Taiga Abe, Venkatesh N Murthy, Mackenzie Weygandt Mathis, and Matthias Bethge. Deeplabcut: markerless pose estima- tion of user-defined body parts with deep learning. Nature neuroscience, 21(9):1281–1289, 2018. 2, 4

    2018

  13. [20]

    Trackformer: Multi-object track- ing with transformers

    Tim Meinhardt, Alexander Kirillov, Laura Leal-Taixe, and Christoph Feichtenhofer. Trackformer: Multi-object track- ing with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 8844–8854, 2022. 2

    2022

  14. [21]

    Sleap: A deep learning system for multi-animal pose track- ing

    Talmo D Pereira, Nathaniel Tabris, Arie Matsliah, David M Turner, Junyu Li, Shruthi Ravindranath, Eleni S Papadoyan- nis, Edna Normand, David S Deutsch, Z Yan Wang, et al. Sleap: A deep learning system for multi-animal pose track- ing. Nature methods, 19(4):486–495, 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  15. [22]

    Auto-reid: Searching for a part-aware convnet for per- son re-identification

    Ruijie Quan, Xuanyi Dong, Yu Wu, Linchao Zhu, and Yi Yang. Auto-reid: Searching for a part-aware convnet for per- son re-identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3750–3759,

  16. [23]

    Generalized in- tersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding box regression

    Hamid Rezatofighi, Nathan Tsoi, JunYoung Gwak, Amir Sadeghian, Ian Reid, and Silvio Savarese. Generalized in- tersection over union: A metric and a loss for bounding box regression. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 658–666,

  17. [24]

    Imagenet-21k pretraining for the masses

    Tal Ridnik, Emanuel Ben-Baruch, Asaf Noy, and Lihi Zelnik-Manor. Imagenet-21k pretraining for the masses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10972, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Welfare and sci- entific considerations of tattooing and ear tagging for mouse identification

    Johnny V Roughan and Tatum Sevenoaks. Welfare and sci- entific considerations of tattooing and ear tagging for mouse identification. Journal of the American Association for Lab- oratory Animal Science, 58(2):142–153, 2019. 2

    2019

  19. [27]

    Simple cues lead to a strong multi-object tracker

    Jenny Seidenschwarz, Guillem Bras ´o, Victor Castro Ser- rano, Ismail Elezi, and Laura Leal-Taix ´e. Simple cues lead to a strong multi-object tracker. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 13813–13823, 2023. 1

    2023

  20. [28]

    The ethovision video tracking system—a tool for behavioral phenotyping of transgenic mice

    AJ Spink, RAJ Tegelenbosch, MOS Buma, and LPJJ Noldus. The ethovision video tracking system—a tool for behavioral phenotyping of transgenic mice. Physiology & behavior, 73 (5):731–744, 2001. 1

    2001

  21. [29]

    Deepsort: deep convolutional networks for sorting haploid maize seeds

    Balaji Veeramani, John W Raymond, and Pritam Chanda. Deepsort: deep convolutional networks for sorting haploid maize seeds. BMC bioinformatics, 19:1–9, 2018. 1

    2018

  22. [30]

    Towards real-time multi-object tracking

    Zhongdao Wang, Liang Zheng, Yixuan Liu, Yali Li, and Shengjin Wang. Towards real-time multi-object tracking. In European conference on computer vision , pages 107–122. Springer, 2020. 1, 3

    2020

  23. [31]

    Simple online and realtime tracking with a deep association metric

    Nicolai Wojke, Alex Bewley, and Dietrich Paulus. Simple online and realtime tracking with a deep association metric. In 2017 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), pages 3645–3649. IEEE, 2017. 2

    2017

  24. [32]

    Track to detect and segment: An online multi-object tracker

    Jialian Wu, Jiale Cao, Liangchen Song, Yu Wang, Ming Yang, and Junsong Yuan. Track to detect and segment: An online multi-object tracker. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 12352–12361, 2021. 1

    2021

  25. [33]

    Superanimal pretrained pose estimation models for behavioral analysis

    Shaokai Ye, Anastasiia Filippova, Jessy Lauer, Steffen Schneider, Maxime Vidal, Tian Qiu, Alexander Mathis, and Mackenzie Weygandt Mathis. Superanimal pretrained pose estimation models for behavioral analysis. Nature communi- cations, 15(1):5165, 2024. 4

    2024

  26. [34]

    Fairmot: On the fairness of detection and re-identification in multiple object tracking

    Yifu Zhang, Chunyu Wang, Xinggang Wang, Wenjun Zeng, and Wenyu Liu. Fairmot: On the fairness of detection and re-identification in multiple object tracking. International journal of computer vision, 129:3069–3087, 2021. 1

    2021

  27. [35]

    Bytetrack: Multi-object tracking by associating every detection box

    Yifu Zhang, Peize Sun, Yi Jiang, Dongdong Yu, Fucheng Weng, Zehuan Yuan, Ping Luo, Wenyu Liu, and Xinggang Wang. Bytetrack: Multi-object tracking by associating every detection box. In European conference on computer vision, pages 1–21. Springer, 2022. 1

    2022

  28. [36]

    Looking for the devil in the details: Learning trilinear atten- tion sampling network for fine-grained image recognition

    Heliang Zheng, Jianlong Fu, Zheng-Jun Zha, and Jiebo Luo. Looking for the devil in the details: Learning trilinear atten- tion sampling network for fine-grained image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 501...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Tracking objects as points

    Xingyi Zhou, Vladlen Koltun, and Philipp Kr ¨ahenb¨uhl. Tracking objects as points. In European conference on com- puter vision, pages 474–490. Springer, 2020. 1

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.