JitTrack: Onboard Multi-Object Tracking Against Viewpoint Jitter for Agile UAVs

Feitian Zhang; Yachun Shan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

JitTrack: Onboard Multi-Object Tracking Against Viewpoint Jitter for Agile UAVs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JitTrack is a query-based transformer tracker that keeps multi-object identities stable under UAV camera jitter by rectifying track queries with a learned global motion bias and training on jitter-patterned denoising queries.

desk verdict Plausible query-based MOT system with honest ablations, but the paper overclaims SOTA and its global-motion model concedes the regime it targets. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10485 v1 pith:UAGESDYD submitted 2026-08-11 cs.RO

Yachun Shan , Feitian Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords multi-objecttrackingunmannedaerialvehiclecameraego-motionquery-basedtransformerviewpointjittermotion-awarequeryrectificationdenoisingtrainingactivetargetfollowing

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

JitTrack sets out to show that a query-based transformer tracker can stay reliable under the violent viewpoint jitter of an agile drone, without any separate camera-motion-estimation module. It proposes three changes to the tracker: enrich new detection queries with image features, shift propagated track queries by a learned low-rank motion bias, and train with denoising queries that imitate yaw, pitch, and roll disturbances. On VisDrone2019-MOT the paper reports MOTA rising from 22.8 to 38.4 and IDF1 from 41.4 to 53.1 against the MOTR baseline, with similar improvements on UAVDT. In ten real flight trials with occlusions, JitTrack completes the following task nine times while the baseline completes none. The reason to care is deployment: UAV MOT is usually judged on offline clips, while JitTrack is built for onboard closed-loop perception-planning-control tracking.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the track-query position rectification $P'_t = P_t + B_m$, where $B_m$ is a unified motion bias produced by motion-conditioned multi-head attention over a heatmap-based spatial prior $H_t$; the nuclear-norm penalty $\lVert B_m\rVert_*$ enforces the low-rank structure of camera-induced motion. The second mechanism is semantic query refinement, which passes newly initialized detection queries through cross- and self-attention with image features and then dilutes them with a similarity weight $W^{\mathrm{dil}} = \sigma(\mathrm{Mean}(Q_d^{\mathrm{sem}} Q_t^{\mathsf{T}}))$ so propagated track queries do not suppress emerging targets. The third is motion-inspired denoising training, which constructs corrupted queries from ground-truth boxes by horizontal and vertical shifts and a rotation $R(\theta)$ around the image center, with an attention mask blocking information leakage; these denoising queries are removed at inference. Together they keep query positions aligned with observations under ego-motion, so identity association survives jitter.

What would settle it

Run JitTrack on a synthetic sequence with a fast lateral camera translation through a scene whose targets sit at two very different depths. If both target groups are tracked with the same single motion bias, near and far targets should receive the wrong correction; rising identity switches in the nearer group, relative to a fixed-camera control, would show the global-motion assumption is load-bearing. Alternatively, replay recorded flight logs through the baseline tracker in the same closed-loop pipeline; if its success rate rises above zero, the real-world comparison reflects integration rather than tracker robustness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that camera ego-motion need not be estimated and compensated as an external factor; instead the tracker can learn to realign its own object queries. The core discovery is that propagated track queries under jitter carry a systematic spatial bias, and this bias can be predicted from a heatmap-based prior over current-frame features as a single motion vector $B_m$ that is added to query positions ($P'_t = P_t + B_m$) and constrained to be low-rank. Combined with semantic query refinement that stops propagated track queries from suppressing newly appearing targets, and motion-inspired denoising training that perturbs ground-truth boxes with yaw, pitch, and roll shifts, the tracker preserves identities under viewpoint change. The paper supports the claim with benchmark gains — 38.4 vs 22.8 MOTA and 53.1 vs 41.4 IDF1 on VisDrone against MOTR — and with a closed-loop flight system where JitTrack keeps target ID 0 through repeated occlusions and completes 9 of 10 trials versus 0 for the baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the drone's jitter moves the whole image in one simple pattern (side-to-side, up-down, and spin), so a single correction can realign every tracked target; the real-world claim also assumes the ten flight trials compare JitTrack and the baseline fairly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

End-to-end query-based trackers can absorb camera-motion robustness without a separate camera-motion-compensation module, simplifying onboard deployment.
On VisDrone-style aerial footage, identity preservation should improve most on high-jitter segments, because all three modules target viewpoint-induced displacement.
On UAVDT, JitTrack reaches 46.7 MOTA and 68.1 IDF1 while staying fully end-to-end, competitive with tracking-by-detection systems.
The closed-loop flight pipeline shows the tracker can drive active following on a physical quadrotor, not just offline benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

The single global motion bias will likely saturate under strong parallax: when a fast lateral translation moves near and far targets by different amounts, one rectification cannot realign both, so an explicit depth or per-target motion term would be the natural extension.
The denoising range (shift offsets $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ and maximum roll $\pi/30$) implicitly sets the jitter envelope JitTrack is trained for; using IMU-measured angular rates to scale perturbations online could extend it.
The 90%-versus-0% flight comparison validates the whole closed-loop JitTrack pipeline; separating tracker quality from planning and integration would require replaying recorded flights through the baseline perception module alone.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's my read on 2608.10485. The real contribution is a set of three query-side modifications to a transformer MOT tracker—semantic refinement, motion-aware rectification, and motion-pattern denoising—and the ablation is honest: each piece adds something on VisDrone. The closed-loop onboard deployment is also a genuinely useful systems contribution. If you work on UAV MOT, this is a serious paper to know about.

That said, the paper sells itself as beating existing methods, and Table I shows it does not. DroneMOT outperforms JitTrack on both VisDrone (43.7 vs 38.4 MOTA) and UAVDT (50.1 vs 46.7). The conclusion's "superior tracking performance compared with existing approaches" is simply not supported. The claim that holds is "consistent improvements over the baseline," which is fine.

The bigger scientific soft spot is the motion model. Eq. (2) adds one global bias to all track queries, and the nuclear-norm regularizer pushes it low-rank. For a translating UAV, image-plane displacement is depth-dependent (f*T_x/Z_i), so a single bias cannot align near and far targets at once. The paper's own Fig. 5 caption concedes the model is intended for distant targets and small camera viewpoint changes—exactly the regime where jitter matters less. That limitation does not break the benchmark numbers, but it does undercut the "robust under agile flight" framing. The denoising training samples only translations and in-plane rotation, so it cannot teach parallax.

The real-world experiment is a nice gesture but methodologically thin: 10 trials, 90% vs 0% success, no error bars, no protocol details, and the baseline isn't fully specified. Also, hyperparameters like lambda, W_drift, and the nuclear-norm weight are never reported. No code or data, so the quantitative claims are hard to verify.

On balance: the method is plausible, the ablations are coherent, and the framework is a legitimate engineering contribution. But the paper needs a serious revision to its claims and a much clearer discussion of the motion model's validity regime before I'd trust the headline. I'd send it to peer review because it's a real system with a sensible idea, but a sharp referee should push on the parallax issue and ask for code or at least exact hyperparameters.

Recommended verdict: major revision, conditional on addressing the overclaim and the motion-model scope.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes JitTrack, a query-based transformer multi-object tracking (MOT) framework for UAVs under viewpoint jitter. It introduces three components: semantic query refinement, which enriches detection queries with image features and suppresses duplicates; motion-aware query rectification, which adds a global motion bias to track-query positions and applies a nuclear-norm low-rank constraint; and motion-inspired denoising training, which perturbs ground-truth boxes with horizontal/vertical shifts and in-plane rotations. The method is evaluated on VisDrone2019-MOT and UAVDT and compared with a MOTR baseline, showing consistent gains. The authors also deploy the tracker in a quadrotor with a perception-planning-control pipeline and report a 90% success rate over 10 flight trials versus 0% for the baseline.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, JitTrack offers a lightweight, learning-based alternative to explicit camera-motion compensation for query-based MOT, and the onboard closed-loop deployment is a useful step toward practical UAV tracking. The ablation study is coherent: each proposed component improves the metrics, and the held-out benchmark splits are standard. However, the paper's headline claims exceed the evidence: Table I shows JitTrack is not state of the art on either benchmark, and the motion model underpinning the core rectification module is limited to distant targets and small viewpoint changes, which is precisely the regime where jitter is less challenging. The real-world experiment is too under-specified to carry the central onboard-robustness claim.

major comments (3)

[Table I and Conclusion (Sec. V)] The Conclusion states that JitTrack 'achieves superior tracking performance compared with existing approaches,' and the abstract emphasizes 'consistent improvements,' but Table I shows JitTrack is not state of the art on MOTA or IDF1 on either benchmark. On VisDrone2019-MOT, FOLT (42.1 MOTA) and DroneMOT (43.7) both outperform JitTrack (38.4), and on UAVDT, DroneMOT (50.1) and FOLT (48.5) outperform it (46.7). The claims should be limited to improvements over the MOTR baseline and to competitive performance among end-to-end trackers.
[Sec. III-B, Eq. (2), and Fig. 5] The core motion rectification adds a single global bias B_m to all track-query position embeddings (Eq. (2)), and the nuclear-norm loss (Eq. (7)) regularizes B_m toward low rank. For a translating UAV, the image-plane displacement of a static target is f*T_x/Z_i, which is depth-dependent; a single additive bias cannot align tracks spanning a wide depth range. The motion-inspired denoising training in Sec. III-C only samples horizontal/vertical shifts and in-plane rotation, so it never exposes the model to the missing parallax structure. Fig. 5 explicitly restricts the model to 'distant targets and small camera viewpoint changes,' which is exactly the regime in which viewpoint jitter is less severe. This undermines the paper's central claim that JitTrack is robust to viewpoint jitter during agile onboard flight. The authors should either narrow their claims to this restricted regime, provide evidence that their benchmark and flight scenarios satisfy the depth-uniformity assumption, or extend the motion model.
[Sec. IV-E] The real-world experiment is reported with insufficient protocol detail to support the quantitative success-rate claim. The paper does not define what constitutes a 'successful' trial, state how the 10 trials were configured (e.g., trajectories, lighting, target types, distractor behavior), specify whether the baseline tracker was evaluated with exactly the same perception-planning-control stack and only the MOT module swapped, or provide per-trial results or error bars. The 90% versus 0% comparison is therefore anecdotal rather than a rigorous validation. The authors should describe the experimental protocol, define the success criterion, and report trial-by-trial outcomes.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. I, Fig. 1] The caption and text refer to 'camera shake intensity,' but the figure does not define how this quantity is computed; please add a definition or reference.
[Sec. III-C, Eq. (3)-(5)] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (3) uses (1+epsilon)lambda_1 as a shift amount, while Eq. (5) adds epsilon as a raw pixel offset after rotation. Please clarify the meaning of epsilon throughout and make the perturbation sampling explicit.
[Sec. IV-A.2] The implementation details mention 'MOT-specific augmentations' but do not specify them; listing them would aid reproducibility.
[Sec. IV-C, Table II] The ablation table does not report the nuclear-norm weight or drift weight, and no sensitivity analysis is given for the free hyperparameters (epsilon, theta_max, lambda, W_drift, nuclear-norm weight). A brief sensitivity study or a table of chosen values would strengthen the claims.
[Sec. II-C] The related-work discussion of camera motion compensation is brief and omits some recent learning-based CMC approaches for MOT; citing a broader range of methods would better position the contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: benchmark results are held-out and the motion modules are trained with generated perturbations rather than fitted to test data.

full rationale

JitTrack's claimed contributions are evaluated on held-out splits of VisDrone2019-MOT and UAVDT, with no test-set fitting or test-derived parameter selection. The motion-aware query rectification bias B_m is estimated from current-frame features and track queries during inference, and the low-rank constraint and denoising objectives are training regularizers; they do not inject the benchmark outcome into the model. The motion-inspired denoising perturbations (Eqs. 3-5) are generated from assumed yaw/pitch/roll patterns, not from the evaluation videos, so they are training augmentation rather than circular prediction. The paper's own Fig. 5 limits the motion model to distant targets and small viewpoint changes, but this is a scope assumption affecting correctness or generalization, not a circularity in the derivation. The only self-citation is the use of FAST-LIO [27] as an external state-estimation module; FAST-LIO is an independent, publicly available system and is not used to justify the tracking claim. No equation in the paper reduces to its input by construction, and no load-bearing claim depends on an unverified self-citation. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on network design choices and training hyperparameters rather than on derived physical quantities. The main assumptions are domain statements about how camera jitter appears in the image plane; neither is derived from data in the paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

epsilon = 0.1
Random perturbation ratio for yaw and pitch denoising queries in Eq. 3-4; chosen by hand with no sensitivity analysis.
theta_max = pi/30
Maximum roll rotation disturbance for denoising queries in Eq. 5; chosen by hand with no sensitivity analysis.
lambda = not specified
Dilution strength in Eq. 1; no value or ablation is reported.
W_drift = not specified
Drift weight in Eq. 6, said to increase the contribution of large-displacement samples; the formula or value is not given.
nuclear norm weight = not specified
Weight for the L_nuc term in Eq. 9; not reported in the implementation details.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Camera ego-motion of agile UAVs maps to three image-plane transformations: horizontal translation, vertical translation, and rotation around the optical axis.
Used in Sec. III-C to generate denoising queries; parallax, out-of-plane rotation, and depth variation are ignored.
domain assumption A single low-rank motion bias estimated from a heatmap-based spatial prior suffices to compensate query misalignment under jitter.
Justifies the motion-aware query rectification and the nuclear-norm regularizer in Sec. III-B; no analysis shows when this assumption fails.
domain assumption Current-frame encoder features provide a reliable spatial prior for camera-induced displacement.
The heatmap prior H_t in Sec. III-B is extracted from encoder features; if the prior mostly reflects object motion rather than ego-motion, the estimated global bias is misestimated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JitTrack: Onboard Multi-Object Tracking Against Viewpoint Jitter for Agile UAVs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UAGESDYD

@misc{pith2026260810485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JitTrack: Onboard Multi-Object Tracking Against Viewpoint Jitter for Agile UAVs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UAGESDYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10485}
}

read the original abstract

Multi-object tracking (MOT) onboard agile unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) remains challenging due to severe viewpoint jitter induced by camera ego-motion. Rapid attitude changes during flight often lead to significant target displacement across frames, causing inaccurate target association and degraded tracking performance. Existing UAV MOT methods are primarily evaluated on offline benchmarks and seldom address the practical requirements of real-world onboard deployment, including robustness to camera motion and active target following. To address these challenges, we propose JitTrack, an active onboard multi-object tracking framework that accommodates drone dynamics and camera ego-motion. Built upon a query-based transformer tracker, JitTrack introduces semantic refinement to improve the detection of emerging targets, motion-aware query rectification to compensate for target misalignment caused by viewpoint jitter, and a motion-inspired denoising training strategy that simulates camera motion patterns for robust supervision. Furthermore, we develop a perception-planning-control closed-loop tracking pipeline for real-world deployment, enabling collision-free and physically feasible target following on agile UAVs. Extensive experiments on public UAV MOT benchmarks demonstrate consistent improvements over the baseline method, while real-world flight experiments validate the effectiveness and practicality of JitTrack for robust onboard visual tracking under viewpoint jitter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10485 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of the proposed JitTrack framework. During training, JitTrack receives three types of queries: semantic detection queries refined by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Architecture of the semantic query refinement module. Image features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Three motion modes of a drone camera. For distant targets and small [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Attention mask for the joint query set. The masked regions prevent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Real-world UAV active tracking results. In this experiment, the UAV is tasked with tracking Target ID 0 while a distractor continuously walks back and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wanget al., “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” in2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2023, pp. 17 853–17 862

work page 2023
[2]

Hybridtrack: A hybrid approach for robust multi-object tracking,

L. D. Bella, Y . Lyu, B. Cornelis, and A. Munteanu, “Hybridtrack: A hybrid approach for robust multi-object tracking,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 7238–7245, 2025

work page 2025
[3]

Imh- mot: Interactive multi-hierarchical image and point cloud fusion for multi-object tracking,

W. Qin, Z. Zhou, J. Luo, C. Pan, H. Xu, X. Dong, and D. Wang, “Imh- mot: Interactive multi-hierarchical image and point cloud fusion for multi-object tracking,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 8858–8865, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

A large-scale benchmark dataset for event recognition in surveillance video,

S. Oh, A. Hoogs, A. Perera, N. Cuntoor, C.-C. Chen, J. T. Lee, S. Mukherjee, J. K. Aggarwal, H. Lee, L. Daviset al., “A large-scale benchmark dataset for event recognition in surveillance video,” inCVPR

work page
[5]

Behave: Dataset and method for tracking human object interactions,

B. L. Bhatnagar, X. Xie, I. A. Petrov, C. Sminchisescu, C. Theobalt, and G. Pons-Moll, “Behave: Dataset and method for tracking human object interactions,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2022, pp. 15 914–15 925

work page 2022
[6]

Mot16: A benchmark for multi-object tracking,

A. Milan, L. Leal-Taix ´e, I. Reid, S. Roth, and K. Schindler, “Mot16: A benchmark for multi-object tracking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.00831, 2016

arXiv 2016
[7]

Mot20: A bench- mark for multi object tracking in crowded scenes,

P. Dendorfer, H. Rezatofighi, A. Milan, J. Shi, D. Cremers, I. Reid, S. Roth, K. Schindler, and L. Leal-Taix ´e, “Mot20: A bench- mark for multi object tracking in crowded scenes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.09003, 2020

arXiv 2003
[8]

Dancetrack: Multi-object tracking in uniform appearance and diverse motion,

P. Sun, J. Cao, Y . Jiang, Z. Yuan, S. Bai, K. Kitani, and P. Luo, “Dancetrack: Multi-object tracking in uniform appearance and diverse motion,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2022, pp. 20 961–20 970

work page 2022

Show all 28 references

[9]

Detection and tracking meet drones challenge,

P. Zhu, L. Wen, D. Du, X. Bian, H. Fan, Q. Hu, and H. Ling, “Detection and tracking meet drones challenge,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 7380–7399, 2021

2021
[10]

The unmanned aerial vehicle benchmark: Object detection and tracking,

D. Du, Y . Qi, H. Yu, Y . Yang, K. Duan, G. Li, W. Zhang, Q. Huang, and Q. Tian, “The unmanned aerial vehicle benchmark: Object detection and tracking,” inProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 370–386

2018
[11]

Eye in the sky: Drone- based object tracking and 3d localization,

H. Zhang, G. Wang, Z. Lei, and J.-N. Hwang, “Eye in the sky: Drone- based object tracking and 3d localization,” inProceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on multimedia, 2019, pp. 899–907

2019
[12]

Multi-object tracking meets moving uav,

S. Liu, X. Li, H. Lu, and Y . He, “Multi-object tracking meets moving uav,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2022, pp. 8866–8875

2022
[13]

Bot-sort: Robust associa- tions multi-pedestrian tracking,

N. Aharon, R. Orfaig, and B.-Z. Bobrovsky, “Bot-sort: Robust associa- tions multi-pedestrian tracking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14651, 2022

2022 arXiv
[14]

Ucmc- track: Multi-object tracking with uniform camera motion compensation,

K. Yi, K. Luo, X. Luo, J. Huang, H. Wu, R. Hu, and W. Hao, “Ucmc- track: Multi-object tracking with uniform camera motion compensation,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 7, 2024, pp. 6702–6710

2024
[15]

Track- former: Multi-object tracking with transformers,

T. Meinhardt, A. Kirillov, L. Leal-Taixe, and C. Feichtenhofer, “Track- former: Multi-object tracking with transformers,” in2022 IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2022, pp. 8834–8844

2022
[16]

Motr: End-to-end multiple-object tracking with transformer,

F. Zeng, B. Dong, Y . Zhang, T. Wang, X. Zhang, and Y . Wei, “Motr: End-to-end multiple-object tracking with transformer,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 659–675

2022
[17]

Memotr: Long-term memory-augmented trans- former for multi-object tracking,

R. Gao and L. Wang, “Memotr: Long-term memory-augmented trans- former for multi-object tracking,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 9901–9910

2023
[18]

Roar: A robust autonomous aerial tracking system for challenging scenarios,

T. Zhang, C. Li, K. Zhao, H. Shen, and T. Pang, “Roar: A robust autonomous aerial tracking system for challenging scenarios,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 7571–7578, 2025

2025
[19]

Onboard dynamic- object detection and tracking for autonomous robot navigation with rgb-d camera,

Z. Xu, X. Zhan, Y . Xiu, C. Suzuki, and K. Shimada, “Onboard dynamic- object detection and tracking for autonomous robot navigation with rgb-d camera,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 651– 658, 2024

2024
[20]

End-to-end object detection with transformers,

N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with transformers,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2020, pp. 213– 229

2020
[21]

Collaborative low frame rate uav tracking by proposals,

Y . Wang, J. Zhou, J. Liang, X. Zhu, and Z. Qiu, “Collaborative low frame rate uav tracking by proposals,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 10 129–10 136, 2024

2024
[22]

Dn-detr: Accelerate detr training by introducing query denoising,

F. Li, H. Zhang, S. Liu, J. Guo, L. M. Ni, and L. Zhang, “Dn-detr: Accelerate detr training by introducing query denoising,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 13 619–13 627

2022
[23]

Bridging the gap between end-to-end and non-end-to-end multi-object tracking,

F. Yan, W. Luo, Y . Zhong, Y . Gan, and L. Ma, “Bridging the gap between end-to-end and non-end-to-end multi-object tracking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12724, 2023

2023 arXiv
[24]

Motrv3: Release-fetch supervision for end-to-end multi-object tracking,

E. Yu, T. Wang, Z. Li, Y . Zhang, X. Zhang, and W. Tao, “Motrv3: Release-fetch supervision for end-to-end multi-object tracking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14298, 2023

2023 arXiv
[25]

Denoising-mot: Towards multiple object tracking with severe occlusions,

T. Fu, X. Wang, H. Yu, K. Niu, B. Li, and X. Xue, “Denoising-mot: Towards multiple object tracking with severe occlusions,” inProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2023, pp. 2734–2743

2023
[26]

Robust and effi- cient quadrotor trajectory generation for fast autonomous flight,

B. Zhou, F. Gao, L. Wang, C. Liu, and S. Shen, “Robust and effi- cient quadrotor trajectory generation for fast autonomous flight,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3529–3536, 2019

2019
[27]

Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter,

W. Xu and F. Zhang, “Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3317–3324, 2021

2021
[2011]

3153–3160

IEEE, 2011, pp. 3153–3160

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wanget al., “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” in2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2023, pp. 17 853–17 862

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Hybridtrack: A hybrid approach for robust multi-object tracking,

L. D. Bella, Y . Lyu, B. Cornelis, and A. Munteanu, “Hybridtrack: A hybrid approach for robust multi-object tracking,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 7238–7245, 2025

work page 2025

[3] [3]

Imh- mot: Interactive multi-hierarchical image and point cloud fusion for multi-object tracking,

W. Qin, Z. Zhou, J. Luo, C. Pan, H. Xu, X. Dong, and D. Wang, “Imh- mot: Interactive multi-hierarchical image and point cloud fusion for multi-object tracking,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 8858–8865, 2025

work page 2025

[4] [4]

A large-scale benchmark dataset for event recognition in surveillance video,

S. Oh, A. Hoogs, A. Perera, N. Cuntoor, C.-C. Chen, J. T. Lee, S. Mukherjee, J. K. Aggarwal, H. Lee, L. Daviset al., “A large-scale benchmark dataset for event recognition in surveillance video,” inCVPR

work page

[5] [5]

Behave: Dataset and method for tracking human object interactions,

B. L. Bhatnagar, X. Xie, I. A. Petrov, C. Sminchisescu, C. Theobalt, and G. Pons-Moll, “Behave: Dataset and method for tracking human object interactions,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2022, pp. 15 914–15 925

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Mot16: A benchmark for multi-object tracking,

A. Milan, L. Leal-Taix ´e, I. Reid, S. Roth, and K. Schindler, “Mot16: A benchmark for multi-object tracking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.00831, 2016

arXiv 2016

[7] [7]

Mot20: A bench- mark for multi object tracking in crowded scenes,

P. Dendorfer, H. Rezatofighi, A. Milan, J. Shi, D. Cremers, I. Reid, S. Roth, K. Schindler, and L. Leal-Taix ´e, “Mot20: A bench- mark for multi object tracking in crowded scenes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.09003, 2020

arXiv 2003

[8] [8]

Dancetrack: Multi-object tracking in uniform appearance and diverse motion,

P. Sun, J. Cao, Y . Jiang, Z. Yuan, S. Bai, K. Kitani, and P. Luo, “Dancetrack: Multi-object tracking in uniform appearance and diverse motion,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, 2022, pp. 20 961–20 970

work page 2022