Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 132 references

A Deep Dive into Generic Object Tracking: A Survey

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 This survey claims the entire generic object tracking literature can be organized into three design paradigms—Siamese matching, discriminative online learning, and transformer-based architectures—and that a unified taxonomy with…

desk verdict A genuinely useful three-paradigm survey whose unsourced Figure 29 comparison needs a data table and protocol before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23251 v1 pith:H7GENZA6 submitted 2025-07-31 cs.CV

Fereshteh Aghaee Meibodi , Shadi Alijani , Homayoun Najjaran This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords genericobjecttrackingsingleSiamesetrackersdiscriminativetransformerLaSOTbenchmarkvisualsurvey
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

This survey tries to establish that the field of generic object tracking is best understood as three coexisting design paradigms—Siamese matching, discriminative online learning, and transformer-based architectures—and that a single taxonomy with standardized diagrams can make their trade-offs visible. It claims to be among the first reviews to treat all three families in one framework instead of one family at a time. A reader should care because the paper turns a crowded literature into a structured map: which trackers update their template, which model temporal context, which are accurate but slow, and which are fast but brittle. The payoff is a birds-eye view of why transformer-based trackers have become the accuracy leaders while older paradigms still matter for speed and adaptability.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a two-axis categorization: paradigm (discriminative, Siamese, hybrid transformer, fully transformer) crossed with functional dimensions such as appearance model, backbone, template update, and architectural level of contribution. The comparison engine is Figure 29, an AUC-versus-FPS scatter on LaSOT that maps each tracker's accuracy against its speed. The standardized diagrams serve as the qualitative counterpart, letting readers compare design flow across trackers without re-reading each paper.

What would settle it

Recompute LaSOT AUC and FPS for a dozen representative trackers under one common protocol and hardware; if the paradigm-level ordering of fully transformer above hybrid above Siamese changes materially, the survey's central performance claim is disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that generic object trackers can be organized into four groups—discriminative, Siamese, hybrid transformer, and fully transformer—and that doing so reveals a clear accuracy-versus-speed landscape. On LaSOT, fully transformer-based trackers occupy the high-accuracy region at moderate speed, hybrid transformer models sit in the middle, Siamese trackers are fast but less accurate, and discriminative trackers are comparatively slow. The paper's contribution is the organization itself: a unified taxonomy, standardized reconstructed architecture diagrams, and multi-dimensional tables comparing appearance model, backbone, update strategy, novelty, and drawbacks.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy and speed numbers plotted in Figure 29 are taken as comparable across papers, even though those papers likely differ in training data, evaluation settings, and hardware.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the taxonomy holds, newcomers can locate any tracker by paradigm and immediately know its update mechanism, backbone, and likely accuracy-speed profile.
  • The LaSOT scatter implies that fully transformer trackers are the current accuracy ceiling, so future work aiming at state-of-the-art performance should start from attention-based architectures.
  • The standardized diagrams make cross-paradigm architectural borrowing, such as adding transformer fusion to Siamese or discriminative trackers, easier to identify and replicate.
  • The gap analysis suggests that hybrid and fully transformer trackers still pay a speed penalty, making efficiency a concrete open target for the next generation of trackers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stricter criterion for the pure-attention category would reclassify some entries: STARK uses a CNN backbone but is labeled convolution-attention based on its head choice, so the boundary between convolution-attention and pure attention is drawn by prediction head rather than backbone.
  • The LaSOT-only comparison may not generalize to long-term benchmarks like LTB-35 or OxUvA, where re-detection ability matters more than per-frame AUC; extending the same scatter to long-term datasets would test whether transformer dominance persists.
  • The paper's own drawback tables could be mined into a per-challenge failure map covering occlusion, distractors, and long-term disappearance, which would be a testable extension of the taxonomy.
  • Because the survey reports no unified re-implementation protocol, a reader should treat the plotted AUC and FPS values as approximate literature-reported numbers rather than measurements from a single controlled run.
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. This manuscript is a survey of generic object tracking (GOT), organized into discriminative-based, Siamese-based, hybrid transformer-based, and fully transformer-based trackers. It proposes a unified taxonomy, offers standardized architectural diagrams for representative methods, summarizes benchmarks and metrics, and provides a Section 4.3 performance comparison of AUC versus FPS on LaSOT. The paper claims to be among the first comprehensive surveys that jointly review all three major paradigms, with particular emphasis on transformer-based methods.

Significance. If its comparisons were properly sourced and its references corrected, the survey would be a useful reference for practitioners and researchers entering the field, as it covers a broad span of methods from MOSSE (2010) through prompt-based trackers such as PiVOT (2025). The paper's strengths include its breadth, the unified architectural diagrams, the functional categorization in Table 8, and the attempt to compare accuracy and efficiency across paradigms. However, the central quantitative contribution, Figure 29, is presented without any provenance or protocol, and several reference errors undermine the reliability of the survey as a reference work. There are no derivations or fitted parameters to check, so the main burden falls on completeness, accuracy of citations, and empirical transparency.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Figure 29] The AUC-versus-FPS scatter plot on LaSOT has no point-by-point provenance: there is no mapping from each plotted point to a paper or model variant, no statement of the evaluation split or LaSOT protocol used, no hardware or FPS measurement details, and no error bars. Because the original papers report AUC under different training settings and FPS on different GPUs, the plot may combine incomparable numbers, and the paradigm-level conclusions drawn from it are not verifiable or reproducible. A supplementary table listing, for every point, the tracker name, paper reference, model variant, training data, evaluation subset, reported AUC, reported FPS, and hardware configuration is needed; alternatively, the quantitative comparison should be removed or substantially qualified.
  2. [Section 3.3.2 / Reference [25]] The text describes SimTrack as a simplified one-branch transformer tracker, but reference [25] points to 'Exploring Simple 3D Multi-Object Tracking for Autonomous Driving' (arXiv:2108.10312), which is an unrelated paper about 3D multi-object tracking. This is not a formatting issue: a reader cannot locate the described method from the bibliography. The reference must be replaced with the correct SimTrack paper, and the in-text description should be checked against it.
  3. [Table 3 / Figure 5] Table 3 labels SiamFC++ as [12], but reference [12] is SiamFC; the correct reference for SiamFC++ is [16] (Xu et al., AAAI 2020). Figure 5's caption uses [16] for SiamFC++, so the table is internally inconsistent with the figure. This citation mismatch directly affects the reliability of the tabular comparison.
  4. [References / Section 3.3.1] TransT [45] is cited as 'Transtrack: Multiple Object Tracking with Transformer' (arXiv:2012.15460), which is a different paper. TransT should be cited as Chen et al., 'Transformer Tracking', CVPR 2021. Since the survey's contribution is partly bibliographic, this kind of substitution is a substantive error that requires correction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1 / Section 7] The introduction states that the survey reviews 'three major families' of trackers, while the concluding remarks refer to 'four major paradigms.' This inconsistency should be resolved by consistently counting hybrid and fully transformer-based trackers as separate categories or as subcategories of one transformer family.
  2. [Tables 2-6] Several table entries contain formatting artifacts such as leading spaces in 'F eature', 'F ocus', 'T rack', and 'T emplate', and Table 5 contains the phrase 'Introduction of NOTU largescake benchmark,' which appears to be a typo. A careful proofreading pass over the tables is needed.
  3. [Section 3.2 / Figure 5] The caption of Figure 5 refers to 'SimaRPN++' instead of 'SiamRPN++', and the text describes 'SiamFC++ [16]' while Table 3 uses '[12]'; these inconsistencies should be corrected together.
  4. [Section 3.1 / Reference [60]] The text credits 'previous adaptive CF methods such as ASEF [60]' to reference [60], but [60] is the same Bolme et al. MOSSE paper as [1]; the ASEF paper is a different work and should be cited separately.
  5. [References / Section 4.1] Reference [93] for VOT2016 lists 'G. Roffo, S. Melzi, et al.' as authors; the VOT2016 challenge paper is by Kristan et al. This reference should be corrected.
  6. [Section 3.3.2 / Figure 1] STMTrack [24] appears in the timeline (Figure 1) and in Table 8, but it is not described in any section of the survey. If it is intended to be a reviewed method, a description and architectural analysis should be added; otherwise it should be removed from the timeline and tables.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey organizes external results and derives none of its claims from its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a literature survey with no formal derivation chain, no fitted parameters, and no quantity that is predicted from its own inputs. The central contributions are a taxonomy, qualitative method descriptions, reconstructed architectural diagrams, and a performance comparison. The taxonomy is an organizational scheme, not a derived result: the paper classifies trackers into paradigms based on stated architectural principles and explicitly contrasts its categorization with existing surveys, so the classification is not circular. The architectural diagrams are descriptive reconstructions of published methods and do not feed back into any claim that depends on them by definition. The only self-citation, [71], is used as a general reference for vision transformer robustness in one sentence about attention mechanisms and is not load-bearing for any contribution. The AUC-vs-FPS scatter plot in Figure 29 does lack a disclosed per-point provenance table, evaluation protocol, and hardware details, which is a legitimate reproducibility and verifiability weakness, but it is not a circularity failure: the plotted numbers are taken from external benchmark results and original papers rather than generated by the survey's own model or fitted from a subset of data and then re-predicted. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or self-citation, to its own inputs. The honest finding is therefore no significant circularity, score 0.

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

As a survey, the paper introduces no free parameters or new entities. It depends on the accuracy of the cited literature and on the comparability of the reported benchmark numbers, which are not verified here.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The cited papers are accurately represented and their reported results are trustworthy.
    The survey's descriptions and comparisons rely entirely on the original papers' claims, which are not independently verified in this preprint.
  • domain assumption Performance numbers from different papers are directly comparable despite different evaluation protocols.
    Figure 29 plots AUC vs FPS from various trackers without stating the exact evaluation settings, assuming comparability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Deep Dive into Generic Object Tracking: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H7GENZA6

@misc{pith2026250723251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Deep Dive into Generic Object Tracking: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H7GENZA6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23251}
}
read the original abstract

Generic object tracking remains an important yet challenging task in computer vision due to complex spatio-temporal dynamics, especially in the presence of occlusions, similar distractors, and appearance variations. Over the past two decades, a wide range of tracking paradigms, including Siamese-based trackers, discriminative trackers, and, more recently, prominent transformer-based approaches, have been introduced to address these challenges. While a few existing survey papers in this field have either concentrated on a single category or widely covered multiple ones to capture progress, our paper presents a comprehensive review of all three categories, with particular emphasis on the rapidly evolving transformer-based methods. We analyze the core design principles, innovations, and limitations of each approach through both qualitative and quantitative comparisons. Our study introduces a novel categorization and offers a unified visual and tabular comparison of representative methods. Additionally, we organize existing trackers from multiple perspectives and summarize the major evaluation benchmarks, highlighting the fast-paced advancements in transformer-based tracking driven by their robust spatio-temporal modeling capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A timeline of major breakthroughs in generic object tracking since 2010, with a particular focus on the past [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visual overview of frameworks in ealier discriminative trackers. This figure illustrates the progression from early [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual overview of more advanced discriminative trackers including more advanced target state estimation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (26 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual overview of early classification-based Siamese-based tracking frameworks namely SiamFC [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual overview of Siamese-based tracking frameworks. This figure highlights more advanced Siamese ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual overview of more advanced Siamese-based tracking frameworks. This figure highlights the progression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual overview of TransT [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual overview of TrDiMP [46], TOMP [47], and TaMOs [48] hybrid transformer-based trackers. This figure illustrates how the reviewed methods incorporate transformers into discriminative-based architectures within the relation modeling stage. It also highlights the ext…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Architecture overview of CMAT [49] hybrid transformer-based tracking framework, which shows This figure illustrates how it applies transformers in feature extraction and relation modeling in unified manner. Convolution-based trackers are only effective at modeling the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visual architecture of STARK [22] as a convolution-attention based Fully transformer trackers emphasizing its online update and transformer-based relation modeling. Transformer matching module Multi-head on multiple window scales Template Search frame Backbone (CNN) W…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visual architecture of CSWinTT [27] with window-wise attention mechanism for object-oriented relation modeling. capture the contextual relationships among different query-key pairs which leads to unreliable attention especially in scenes with background clutter or imp…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visual architecture of discriminative AiATrack [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: End-t-end MixFormer visual architecture [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visual overview of earlier pure attention-based fully transformer trackers emphasizing fully tranformer-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Visual overview of single-branch SBT [29] which applies joint feature extraction and relation modeling like OSTrack [26] but through a novel and more discriminative transformer-based backbone. Masked dropped pair Template Search frame Patch partitioning Patch partitio…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Visual overview of DropMAE [31] emphasizes on applying drop masking to achieve more discriminative search features random masking to encourage the learning of discriminative features. However, it introduces a masked appearance transfer framework that jointly encodes t…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: F-BDMTrack [32] architecture via Foreground-Background Distribution Modeling Transformer to achieve more discriminative power in tracking. framework requires no additional supervision or auxiliary modules and achieves improved discrimina￾tion and context awareness, pa…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Visual overview of sequence-level pure attention fully transformer trackers. This figure illustrates a coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Visual overview of effecient MixFormer2 based on learnable bounding box prediction tokens [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Visual overview of GRM [37] with category-aware attention layers offering robustness against background clutter. of both paradigms through a novel three-stream architecture. This tracker includes an inherent tem￾plate that encodes stable and clean object features via …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Visual overview of three-stream ROMTrack [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Visual overview of VideoTrack [39] introducing video-level transformer for rich temporal context aggregation. AQA-Track [40] shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Visual overview of AQA-Track [40] highlighting its spatiotemporal sequence modeling based on temporal decoder. relevance. The backbone of AQA-Track is a lightweight hierarchical vision transformer (HiViT) [77] that enables efficient representation learning across scal…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Visual overview of ODTrack [41] with spatiotemporal sequence modeling using iterative token propagation strategy. tion when integrating features from historical frames, especially in long-term tracking scenarios with significant appearance variation. Li et al. [50] ad…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Visual overview of OneTracker [42] with prompt-based modeling for improved generalization across modalities. Decoder Relevance Attention Transformer Block Template Search frame Patch partitioning GR memory TF fusion Transformer block (x N) Adaptive token rank (Attenti…
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Visual overview of RFGM [50] highlighting its memory adaptation technique for long-term tracking. ing multi-scale convolution before the attention operation in order to enable robust tracking under scale variations and occlusion. The CC-MLP further enriches feature re…
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Visual overview of FCAT [43] composed of Fine–Coarse Concatenated Attention (FCA) and Cross￾Concatenation MLP (CC-MLP). Shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Visual overview of promptable PiVOT [44] tracker integrating CLIP [78] into visual tracking. addressing biases in initial conditions and adding challenges like fast motion. These datasets became cornerstones for evaluating robustness but were limited in scale, prompti…
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Performance comparison of reviewed GOT trackers categorized by appearance model based on AUC vs. FPS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_29.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Exploring Simple 3D Multi-Object Tracking for Autonomous Driving

    Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, X. Wang, H. Li, Exploring simple 3d multi-object tracking for autonomous driving, arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10312 (2021)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [12]

    Bertinetto, J

    L. Bertinetto, J. Valmadre, J. F. Henriques, A. Vedaldi, P. H. Torr, Fully-convolutional siamese networks for object tracking, in: ECCV Workshops, 2016, pp. 850–865

    2016

  3. [16]

    Y. Xu, Z. Wang, Z. Li, Y. Yuan, Siamfc++: Towards robust and accurate visual tracking with target estimation guidelines, in: AAAI, volume 34, 2020, pp. 12549–12556

    2020

  4. [45]

    Cheng, X

    B. Cheng, X. Wang, W. Zhang, C. Zhang, H. Li, J. Sun, P. Luo, Transtrack: Multiple object tracking with transformer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15460 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  5. [1]

    D. S. Bolme, J. R. Beveridge, B. A. Draper, Y. M. Lui, Visual object tracking using adaptive correlation filters, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2010, pp. 2544–2550. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2010.5586147

    work page arXiv 2010

  6. [2]

    J. F. Henriques, R. Caseiro, P. Martins, J. Batista, High-speed tracking with kernelized cor- relation filters, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI) 37 (2015) 583–596. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2014.2345390

    arXiv 2015

  7. [3]

    Danelljan, G

    M. Danelljan, G. Hager, F. Shahbaz Khan, M. Felsberg, Learning spatially regularized correlation filters for visual tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2015, pp. 4310–4318. doi: 10.1109/ICCV.2015.490

    work page doi:10.1109/iccv.2015.490 2015

  8. [4]

    H. K. Galoogahi, A. Fagg, S. Lucey, Learning background-aware correlation filters for visual tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017, pp. 1135–1143. doi: 10.1109/ICCV.2017.127

    work page doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.127 2017

Show all 132 references
  1. [5]

    H. Nam, B. Han, Learning multi-domain convolutional neural networks for visual tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 4293–4302. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.464

    2016 doi

  2. [6]

    Y. Li, J. Zhu, S. C. Hoi, Deep discriminative correlation filter learning for visual tracking, Pattern Recognition 94 (2019) 322–332. doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2019.05.014

    2019 doi

  3. [7]

    Valmadre, L

    J. Valmadre, L. Bertinetto, J. F. Henriques, A. Vedaldi, P. H. Torr, End-to-end representation learning for correlation filter based tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 2805–2813. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017. 299

    2017 doi

  4. [8]

    Danelljan, G

    M. Danelljan, G. Bhat, F. S. Khan, M. Felsberg, Atom: Accurate tracking by overlap maxi- mization, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019, pp. 4660–4669. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00479

    2019

  5. [9]

    G. Bhat, M. Danelljan, L. Van Gool, R. Timofte, Learning discriminative model prediction for tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019, pp. 6182–6191. doi: 10.1109/ICCV.2019.00628

    2019

  6. [10]

    Danelljan, L

    M. Danelljan, L. Van Gool, R. Timofte, Probabilistic regression for visual tracking, in: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 7183–7192. doi: 10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00721

    2020

  7. [11]

    Mayer, M

    C. Mayer, M. Danelljan, L. Van Gool, R. Timofte, Learning to track multiple objects with a single tracker, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021, pp. 6297–6307. doi: 10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00623

    2021

  8. [13]

    B. Li, J. Yan, W. Wu, Z. Zhu, X. Hu, High performance visual tracking with siamese region proposal network, in: CVPR, 2018, pp. 8971–8980

    2018

  9. [14]

    Z. Chen, B. Zhong, G. Li, S. Zhang, R. Ji, Siamban: Siamese box adaptive network for visual tracking, in: CVPR, 2020, pp. 6668–6677. 47

    2020

  10. [15]

    A. He, C. Luo, X. Tian, W. Zeng, Siamese network with spatial attention for visual tracking, in: CVPR, 2018, pp. 9351–9360

    2018

  11. [17]

    B. Li, W. Wu, Q. Wang, F. Zhang, J. Xing, J. Yan, Siamrpn++: Evolution of siamese visual tracking with very deep networks, in: CVPR, 2019, pp. 4282–4291

    2019

  12. [18]

    Y. Yu, Y. Xiong, W. Huang, M. R. Scott, Deformable siamese attention networks for visual object tracking, in: CVPR, 2020, pp. 6727–6736

    2020

  13. [19]

    Voigtlaender, J

    P. Voigtlaender, J. Luiten, P. H. Torr, B. Leibe, Siam r-cnn: Visual tracking by re-detection, in: CVPR, 2020, pp. 6577–6587

    2020

  14. [20]

    Z. Zhu, Q. Wang, L. Bo, W. Wu, J. Yan, X. Hu, Distractor-aware siamese networks for visual object tracking, in: ECCV, 2018, pp. 103–119

    2018

  15. [21]

    Y. Su, X. Yang, C. Ma, Siamdmu: Dual mask update for template adaptation in siamese trackers, IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence 8 (2024) 1658–1668

    2024

  16. [22]

    B. Yan, H. Peng, J. Fu, D. Wang, H. Lu, Learning spatio-temporal transformer for visual tracking, arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.17154 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  17. [23]

    L. Lin, H. Fan, Z. Zhang, Y. Xu, H. Ling, Swintrack: A simple and strong baseline for transformer tracking, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022

    2022

  18. [24]

    Z. Fu, Q. Liu, Z. Fu, Y. Wang, Stmtrack: Template-free visual tracking with space-time memory networks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021, pp. 13774–13783

    2021

  19. [26]

    B. Ye, H. Chang, B. Ma, S. Shan, X. Chen, Joint feature learning and relation modeling for tracking: A one-stream framework, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022

    2022

  20. [27]

    K. Song, Y. Wang, M. Li, Y. Zhang, Transformer tracking with cyclic shifting window attention, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 12345–12354

    2022

  21. [28]

    S. Gao, C. Zhou, C. Ma, X. Wang, J. Yuan, Aiatrack: Attention in attention for transformer visual tracking, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022

    2022

  22. [29]

    N. Wang, W. Zhou, J. Wang, H. Li, Correlation-embedded transformer tracking: A single-branch architecture, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12743 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Y. Cui, C. Jiang, L. Wang, G. Wu, Mixformer: End-to-end tracking with iterative mixed atten- tion, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 13608–13618

    2022

  24. [31]

    Q. Wu, T. Yang, Z. Liu, B. Wu, Y. Shan, A. B. Chan, Dropmae: Masked autoencoders with spatial-attention dropout for tracking tasks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 14561–14571. 48

    2023

  25. [32]

    D. Yang, J. He, Y. Ma, Q. Yu, T. Zhang, Foreground-background distribution modeling trans- former for visual object tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 10117–10127

    2023

  26. [33]

    H. Zhao, D. Wang, H. Lu, Representation learning for visual object tracking by masked appear- ance transfer, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 18696–18705

    2023

  27. [34]

    X. Wei, Y. Bai, Y. Zheng, D. Shi, Y. Gong, Autoregressive visual tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 9697–9706

    2023

  28. [35]

    Y. Cui, T. Song, G. Wu, L. Wang, Mixformerv2: Efficient fully transformer tracking, Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2023) 58736–58751

    2023

  29. [36]

    X. Chen, H. Peng, D. Wang, H. Lu, H. Hu, Seqtrack: Sequence to sequence learning for visual object tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 14572–14581

    2023

  30. [37]

    S. Gao, C. Zhou, J. Zhang, Generalized relation modeling for transformer tracking, in: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 18686–18695

    2023

  31. [38]

    Y. Cai, J. Liu, J. Tang, G. Wu, Robust object modeling for visual tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 9589–9600

    2023

  32. [39]

    F. Xie, L. Chu, J. Li, Y. Lu, C. Ma, Videotrack: Learning to track objects via video transformer, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 22826–22835

    2023

  33. [40]

    J. Xie, B. Zhong, Z. Mo, S. Zhang, L. Shi, S. Song, R. Ji, Autoregressive queries for adaptive tracking with spatio-temporal transformers, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 19300–19309

    2024

  34. [41]

    Zheng, B

    Y. Zheng, B. Zhong, Q. Liang, Z. Mo, S. Zhang, X. Li, Odtrack: Online dense temporal token learning for visual tracking, in: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 38, 2024, pp. 7588–7596

    2024

  35. [42]

    L. Hong, S. Yan, R. Zhang, W. Li, X. Zhou, P. Guo, K. Jiang, Y. Chen, J. Li, Z. Chen, et al., Onetracker: Unifying visual object tracking with foundation models and efficient tuning, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2024, p...

    2024

  36. [43]

    L. Gao, L. Chen, P. Liu, Y. Jiang, Y. Li, J. Ning, Transformer-based visual object tracking via fine–coarse concatenated attention and cross concatenated mlp, Pattern Recognition 146 (2024) 109964

    2024

  37. [44]

    Chen, J.-C

    S.-F. Chen, J.-C. Chen, I.-H. Jhuo, Y.-Y. Lin, Improving visual object tracking through visual prompting, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    N. Wang, W. Zhou, J. Wang, H. Li, Transformer meets tracker: Exploiting temporal context for robust visual tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021, pp. 8124–8133. 49

    2021

  39. [47]

    Mayer, M

    C. Mayer, M. Danelljan, G. Bhat, M. Paul, D. P. Paudel, F. Yu, L. Van Gool, Transforming model prediction for tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 8731–8740

    2022

  40. [48]

    Mayer, M

    C. Mayer, M. Danelljan, G. Bhat, D. P. Paudel, L. Van Gool, Beyond sot: Tracking multiple generic objects at once, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV), 2024, pp. 1234–1243

    2024

  41. [49]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, M. Li, W. Liu, X. Wang, Cmat: Integrating convolution mixer and self- attention for visual tracking, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 25 (2023) 1234–1245

    2023

  42. [50]

    J. Li, W. Chen, M. Zhao, L. Wang, Reading relevant feature from global representation memory for visual object tracking, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    S. M. Marvasti-Zadeh, L. Cheng, H. Ghanei-Yakhdan, S. Kasaei, Deep learning for visual track- ing: A comprehensive survey, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 22 (2021) 3782–3804. doi:10.1109/TITS.2020.3046478

    2021

  44. [52]

    Y. Li, J. Zhu, S. C. Hoi, Recent advances of single-object tracking methods: A brief survey, Neurocomputing 492 (2022) 318–329. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.05.011

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    C. Li, B. Yang, C. Li, Deep learning based visual tracking: A review, Neurocomputing 275 (2018) 2471–2480. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.10.070

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    M. Y. Abbass, K.-C. Kwon, N. Kim, S. A. Abdelwahab, F. E. Abd El-Samie, A. A. M. Khalaf, A survey on online learning for visual tracking, The Visual Computer 36 (2020) 993–1014. doi:10.1007/s00371-020-01848-y

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    Javed, M

    S. Javed, M. Danelljan, F. S. Khan, M. H. Khan, M. Felsberg, J. Matas, Visual object tracking with discriminative filters and siamese networks: A survey and outlook, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45 (2023) 1–1. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3212594

    2023

  48. [56]

    Ondraˇ soviˇ c, P

    M. Ondraˇ soviˇ c, P. Taraba, Siamese visual object tracking: A survey, Electronics 10 (2021) 1876. doi:10.3390/electronics10151876

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, Visual object tracking: A survey, Computer Vision and Image Understanding 210 (2022) 103508. doi: 10.1016/j.cviu.2021.103508

    2022

  50. [58]

    Thangavel, T

    J. Thangavel, T. Kokul, A. Ramanan, S. Fernando, Transformers in single object tracking: An experimental survey, IEEE Access 11 (2023) 80297–80326. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3237614

    2023

  51. [59]

    Abdelaziz, M

    O. Abdelaziz, M. Shehata, M. Mohamed, Beyond traditional single object tracking: A survey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10439 (2024). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10439

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    D. S. Bolme, J. R. Beveridge, B. A. Draper, Y. M. Lui, Visual object tracking using adaptive correlation filters, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE, 2010, pp. 2544–2550

    2010

  53. [61]

    Simonyan, A

    K. Simonyan, A. Zisserman, Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition, in: International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015. URL: https://arxiv.org/ abs/1409.1556

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE, 2016, pp. 770–778. 50

    2016

  55. [63]

    D. Held, S. Thrun, S. Savarese, Learning to track at 100 fps with deep regression networks, in: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Springer, 2016, pp. 749–765

    2016

  56. [64]

    D. Guo, J. Xu, H. Zhu, Z. Huang, Learning dynamic siamese network for visual object tracking, in: ICCV, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    Zhang, H

    Z. Zhang, H. Peng, J. Fu, B. Li, W. Hu, Ocean: Object-aware anchor-free tracking, in: ECCV, 2020, pp. 771–787

    2020

  58. [66]

    H. Chen, L. Zhang, et al., Enhanced correlation information mixer for siamese visual tracking, Knowledge-Based Systems 285 (2024) 111368

    2024

  59. [67]

    Krizhevsky, I

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, G. E. Hinton, Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks, Advances in neural information processing systems 25 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    A. G. Howard, M. Zhu, B. Chen, D. Kalenichenko, W. Wang, T. Weyand, M. Andreetto, H. Adam, Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural networks for mobile vision applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Szegedy, W

    C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, A. Rabinovich, Going deeper with convolutions, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2015, pp. 1–9

    2015

  62. [70]

    Szegedy, V

    C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, Z. Wojna, Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 2818–2826

    2016

  63. [71]

    Alijani, J

    S. Alijani, J. Fayyad, H. Najjaran, Vision transformers in domain adaptation and domain generalization: a study of robustness, Neural Computing and Applications 36 (2024) 17979– 18007

    2024

  64. [72]

    Dosovitskiy, L

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, N. Houlsby, An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, in: International Conference on Learning Repr...

    2021

  65. [73]

    Carion, F

    N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, S. Zagoruyko, End-to-end object detection with transformers, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020, pp. 213–229

    2020

  66. [74]

    Huang, X

    L. Huang, X. Zhao, K. Huang, Got-10k: A large high-diversity benchmark for generic object tracking in the wild, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 43 (2021) 1562–1577

    2021

  67. [75]

    Z. Liu, Y. Lin, Y. Cao, H. Hu, Y. Wei, Z. Zhang, S. Lin, B. Guo, Swin transformer: Hierarchi- cal vision transformer using shifted windows, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 10012–10022

    2021

  68. [76]

    H. Wu, B. Xiao, N. Codella, M. Liu, X. Dai, L. Yuan, L. Zhang, Cvt: Introducing convolutions to vision transformers, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021, pp. 22–31

    2021

  69. [77]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Tian, L. Xie, W. Huang, Q. Dai, Q. Ye, Q. Tian, Hivit: A simpler and more efficient design of hierarchical vision transformer, in: The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 51

    2023

  70. [78]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al., Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion, in: International conference on machine learning, PmLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  71. [79]

    Dosovitskiy, L

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, N. Houlsby, An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, in: International Conference on Learning Repr...

    2021

  72. [80]

    Y. Wu, J. Lim, M.-H. Yang, Online object tracking: A benchmark, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2013, pp. 2411–2418

    2013

  73. [81]

    Y. Wu, J. Lim, M.-H. Yang, Object tracking benchmark, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 37 (2015) 1834–1848

    2015

  74. [82]

    Liang, E

    P. Liang, E. Blasch, H. Ling, Encoding color information for visual tracking: Algorithms and benchmark, IEEE transactions on image processing 24 (2015) 5630–5644

    2015

  75. [83]

    A. W. Smeulders, D. M. Chu, R. Cucchiara, S. Calderara, A. Dehghan, M. Shah, Visual tracking: An experimental survey, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 36 (2013) 1442–1468

    2013

  76. [84]

    Muller, A

    M. Muller, A. Bibi, S. Giancola, S. Alsubaihi, B. Ghanem, Trackingnet: A large-scale dataset and benchmark for object tracking in the wild, in: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 300–317

    2018

  77. [85]

    A. Li, M. Lin, Y. Wu, M.-H. Yang, S. Yan, Nus-pro: A new visual tracking challenge, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 38 (2015) 335–349

    2015

  78. [86]

    Kiani Galoogahi, A

    H. Kiani Galoogahi, A. Fagg, S. Lucey, Need for speed: A benchmark for higher frame rate object tracking, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2017) 1125–1134

    2017

  79. [87]

    H. Fan, F. Yang, P. Chu, Y. Lin, L. Yuan, H. Ling, Tracklinic: Diagnosis of challenge factors in visual tracking, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 970–979

    2021

  80. [88]

    Valmadre, L

    J. Valmadre, L. Bertinetto, J. F. Henriques, A. Vedaldi, P. H. Torr, Long-term tracking in the wild: A benchmark, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 650–666

    2018

  81. [89]

    Moudgil, V

    A. Moudgil, V. Gandhi, Long-term visual object tracking benchmark, Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision (ACCV) (2018)

    2018

  82. [90]

    Lukeˇ ziˇ c, L.ˇC

    A. Lukeˇ ziˇ c, L.ˇC. Zajc, T. Voj ´ ıˇ r, J. Matas, M. Kristan, Now you see me: evaluating performance in long-term visual tracking, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07056 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

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

    2019

  84. [92]

    Kristan, J

    M. Kristan, J. Matas, A. Leonardis, M. Felsberg, L. Cehovin, G. Fernandez, T. Vojir, G. Hager, G. Nebehay, R. Pflugfelder, The visual object tracking vot2015 challenge results, in: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision workshops, 2015, pp. 1–23. 52

    2015

  85. [93]

    Roffo, S

    G. Roffo, S. Melzi, et al., The visual object tracking vot2016 challenge results, in: Computer Vision–ECCV 2016 Workshops: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 8-10 and 15-16, 2016, Proceedings, Part II, Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 777–823

    2016

  86. [94]

    Kristan, J

    M. Kristan, J. Matas, A. Leonardis, M. Felsberg, L. Cehovin Zajc, T. Vojir, G. D. Hager, et al., The sixth visual object tracking vot2018 challenge results, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops, 2018

    2018

  87. [95]

    Mueller, N

    M. Mueller, N. Smith, B. Ghanem, A benchmark and simulator for uav tracking, European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2016) 445–461

    2016

  88. [96]

    W. Hu, Q. Wang, L. Zhang, L. Bertinetto, P. H. Torr, Siammask: A framework for fast on- line object tracking and segmentation, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45 (2023) 3072–3089

    2023

  89. [97]

    Lukezic, J

    A. Lukezic, J. Matas, M. Kristan, D3s-a discriminative single shot segmentation tracker, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 7133–7142

    2020

  90. [98]

    M. Paul, M. Danelljan, C. Mayer, L. Van Gool, Robust visual tracking by segmentation, in: European conference on computer vision, Springer, 2022, pp. 571–588

    2022

  91. [99]

    A. Ali, A. Jalil, J. Niu, X. Zhao, S. Rathore, J. Ahmed, M. Aksam Iftikhar, Visual object tracking—classical and contemporary approaches, Frontiers of Computer Science 10 (2016) 167– 188

    2016

  92. [100]

    S. Abba, A. M. Bizi, J.-A. Lee, S. Bakouri, M. L. Crespo, Real-time object detection, tracking, and monitoring framework for security surveillance systems, Heliyon 10 (2024)

    2024

  93. [101]

    Sivalingam, A

    R. Sivalingam, A. Cherian, J. Fasching, N. Walczak, N. Bird, V. Morellas, B. Murphy, K. Cullen, K. Lim, G. Sapiro, et al., A multi-sensor visual tracking system for behavior monitoring of at-risk children, in: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE...

    2012

  94. [102]

    W. Hu, T. Tan, L. Wang, S. Maybank, A survey on visual surveillance of object motion and behaviors, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 34 (2004) 334–352

    2004

  95. [103]

    Polat, M

    E. Polat, M. Yeasin, R. Sharma, Robust tracking of human body parts for collaborative human computer interaction, Computer Vision and Image Understanding 89 (2003) 44–69

    2003

  96. [104]

    A. W. N. Ibrahim, P. W. Ching, G. G. Seet, W. M. Lau, W. Czajewski, Moving objects detection and tracking framework for uav-based surveillance, in: 2010 Fourth Pacific-Rim Symposium on Image and Video Technology, IEEE, 2010, pp. 456–461

    2010

  97. [105]

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

    2018

  98. [106]

    L.-Y. Lo, C. H. Yiu, Y. Tang, A.-S. Yang, B. Li, C.-Y. Wen, Dynamic object tracking on autonomous uav system for surveillance applications, Sensors 21 (2021) 7888

    2021

  99. [107]

    Fernandez-Sanjurjo, B

    M. Fernandez-Sanjurjo, B. Bosquet, M. Mucientes, V. M. Brea, Real-time visual detection and tracking system for traffic monitoring, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 85 (2019) 410–420. 53

    2019

  100. [108]

    Khemmar, M

    R. Khemmar, M. Gouveia, B. Decoux, J.-Y. y Ertaud, Real time pedestrian and object detection and tracking-based deep learning. application to drone visual tracking, in: WSCG’2019-27. International Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vi...

    2019

  101. [109]

    Makhmutova, I

    A. Makhmutova, I. V. Anikin, M. Dagaeva, Object tracking method for videomonitoring in intel- ligent transport systems, in: 2020 International Russian Automation Conference (RusAutoCon), IEEE, 2020, pp. 535–540

    2020

  102. [110]

    D. M. Jim´ enez-Bravo, ´A. L. Murciego, A. S. Mendes, H. S. San Bl´ as, J. Bajo, Multi-object tracking in traffic environments: A systematic literature review, Neurocomputing 494 (2022) 43–55

    2022

  103. [111]

    Bisio, C

    I. Bisio, C. Garibotto, H. Haleem, F. Lavagetto, A. Sciarrone, A systematic review of drone based road traffic monitoring system, Ieee Access 10 (2022) 101537–101555

    2022

  104. [112]

    Markiewicz, M

    P. Markiewicz, M. D lugosz, P. Skruch, Review of tracking and object detection systems for advanced driver assistance and autonomous driving applications with focus on vulnerable road users sensing, in: Polish Control Conference, Springer, 2017, pp. 224–237

    2017

  105. [113]

    Premachandra, S

    C. Premachandra, S. Ueda, Y. Suzuki, Detection and tracking of moving objects at road inter- sections using a 360-degree camera for driver assistance and automated driving, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 135652–135660

    2020

  106. [114]

    K. Cho, D. Cho, Autonomous driving assistance with dynamic objects using traffic surveillance cameras, Applied Sciences 12 (2022) 6247

    2022

  107. [115]

    Petrovskaya, S

    A. Petrovskaya, S. Thrun, Model based vehicle detection and tracking for autonomous urban driving, Autonomous Robots 26 (2009) 123–139

    2009

  108. [116]

    Muller, M

    A. Muller, M. Manz, M. Himmelsbach, H. Wunsche, A model-based object following system, in: 2009 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, IEEE, 2009, pp. 242–249

    2009

  109. [117]

    Rangesh, M

    A. Rangesh, M. M. Trivedi, No blind spots: Full-surround multi-object tracking for autonomous vehicles using cameras and lidars, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 4 (2019) 588–599

    2019

  110. [118]

    G´ omez-Hu´ elamo, L

    C. G´ omez-Hu´ elamo, L. M. Bergasa, R. Guti´ errez, J. F. Arango, A. D ´ ıaz, Smartmot: Exploiting the fusion of hdmaps and multi-object tracking for real-time scene understanding in intelligent vehicles applications, in: 2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), IEEE, 2...

    2021

  111. [119]

    C. A. Richards, N. P. Papanikolopoulos, Detection and tracking for robotic visual servoing systems, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 13 (1997) 101–120

    1997

  112. [120]

    D. J. Jacques, R. Rodrigo, K. A. McIsaac, J. Samarabandu, An object tracking and visual servoing system for the visually impaired, in: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, 2005, pp. 3510–3515

    2005

  113. [121]

    Chaumette, S

    F. Chaumette, S. Hutchinson, Visual servoing and visual tracking, Handbook of Robotics (2008) 563–583

    2008

  114. [122]

    W. E. Dixon, E. Zergeroglu, Y. Fang, D. M. Dawson, Object tracking by a robot manipulator: a robust cooperative visual servoing approach, in: Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 02CH37292), volume 1, IEEE, 2002, pp. 211–216. 54

    2002

  115. [123]

    S. Xu, K. Chen, Y. Ou, Z. Wang, C. Yang, A learning-based object tracking strategy using visual sensors and intelligent robot arm, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 20 (2022) 2280–2293

    2022

  116. [124]

    Ortenzi, A

    V. Ortenzi, A. Cosgun, T. Pardi, W. P. Chan, E. Croft, D. Kuli´ c, Object handovers: a review for robotics, IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37 (2021) 1855–1873

    2021

  117. [125]

    Costanzo, G

    M. Costanzo, G. De Maria, C. Natale, Handover control for human-robot and robot-robot collaboration, Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8 (2021) 672995

    2021

  118. [126]

    Bouget, M

    D. Bouget, M. Allan, D. Stoyanov, P. Jannin, Vision-based and marker-less surgical tool detection and tracking: a review of the literature, Medical Image Analysis 35 (2017) 633–654. doi:10.1016/ j.media.2016.09.003

    2017

  119. [127]

    C. I. Nwoye, N. Padoy, Surgitrack: Fine-grained multi-class multi-tool tracking in surgical videos, Medical Image Analysis 101 (2025) 103438

    2025

  120. [128]

    Z. Li, H. Shu, R. Liang, A. Goodridge, M. Sahu, F. X. Creighton, R. H. Taylor, M. Unberath, Tatoo: vision-based joint tracking of anatomy and tool for skull-base surgery, International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 18 (2023) 1303–1310

    2023

  121. [129]

    Martin-Gomez, H

    A. Martin-Gomez, H. Li, T. Song, S. Yang, G. Wang, H. Ding, N. Navab, Z. Zhao, M. Armand, Sttar: surgical tool tracking using off-the-shelf augmented reality head-mounted displays, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023)

    2023

  122. [130]

    Singh, S

    A. Singh, S. S. M. Salehi, A. Gholipour, Deep predictive motion tracking in magnetic resonance imaging: application to fetal imaging, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 39 (2020) 3523– 3534

    2020

  123. [131]

    Koniar, L

    D. Koniar, L. Hargaˇ s, Z. Loncova, A. Simonova, F. Duchoˇ n, P. Beˇ no, Visual system-based object tracking using image segmentation for biomedical applications, Electrical Engineering 99 (2017) 1349–1366

    2017

  124. [132]

    Hayashida, K

    J. Hayashida, K. Nishimura, R. Bise, Consistent cell tracking in multi-frames with spatio- temporal context by object-level warping loss, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Con- ference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2022, pp. 1727–1736. 55

    2022

Pith tools

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