Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

CHIRLA: Comprehensive High-resolution Identification and Re-identification for Large-scale Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces CHIRLA, a seven-month multi-camera indoor video dataset for long-term person re-identification, and reports that the best model tested achieves 18.81% rank-1 accuracy in its long-term scenario.

desk verdict CHIRLA is a genuinely new long-term video Re-ID benchmark combination, but the label-quality evidence is missing and the fully annotated claim is contradicted by the paper's own procedure. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06681 v2 pith:WVU2OGYK submitted 2025-02-10 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Bessie Dominguez-Dager , Felix Escalona , Francisco Gomez-Donoso , Miguel Cazorla This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG
keywords personre-identificationlong-termRe-IDclothingchangevideodatasetmulti-camerabenchmarkindoorsurveillanceocclusiontracking
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 introduces CHIRLA, a dataset for long-term person re-identification recorded over seven months in a four-room indoor office with seven synchronized cameras. It contains 22 people, more than 5.5 hours of video, and about 963,000 annotated bounding boxes, with identity labels kept consistent across cameras and recording sessions and substantial clothing variation between sessions. The authors also define benchmark protocols for two tracking scenarios and four Re-ID scenarios — reappearance, long-term, multi-camera, and multi-camera long-term — and evaluate many CNN and transformer models on them. The best model reaches 18.81% CMC@1 and 23.24% mAP on the long-term scenario, and tracking accuracy drops sharply under occlusion. If the dataset and its labels are sound, CHIRLA provides a benchmark where appearance change, occlusion, and camera transitions can be tested together in continuous video.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CHIRLA dataset itself: seven synchronized 1080×720 cameras recording four connected indoor spaces over seven months, yielding 10 video sequences and 963,554 annotated bounding boxes for 22 identities. Identity labels were produced by a semi-automatic pipeline combining YOLOv8 person detections, Deep SORT tracklets, and manual review in a custom GUI, with IDs kept consistent across all cameras and sequences. The benchmark protocols are the other load-bearing component: tracking tasks built from occlusion intervals of one to five seconds, and Re-ID tasks built from reappearances, long temporal gaps, cross-camera views, and their combination, scored with CMC, mAP, MOTA, and IDF1.

What would settle it

Sample bounding boxes assigned to the same ID from different sequences and have several independent human annotators judge whether they depict the same person; if a meaningful share of matches disagree with the dataset labels, the long-term benchmark scores partly reflect annotation noise rather than appearance change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CHIRLA is claimed to be the first fully annotated, long-term, video-based person Re-ID dataset captured in an indoor environment, combining temporal continuity with deliberate clothing change. It offers more bounding boxes per identity than previous clothing-change datasets, about 44,000 per ID, and higher-resolution person crops than existing long-term benchmarks, while the synchronized seven-camera setup supports cross-camera evaluation. Benchmark experiments show that current Re-ID models, including CNN and transformer backbones, reach only 18.81% rank-1 accuracy in the long-term scenario and 24.31% in the multi-camera long-term scenario, and that occlusion-focused tracking results are far worse than full-test-set results, with best MOTA dropping from 68.84 to 12.42 under brief occlusions. The paper takes these numbers as evidence that long-term indoor Re-ID with clothing changes remains unsolved and that CHIRLA offers a realistic testbed for it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the identity labels are correct: every bounding box assigned to an ID across the seven-month capture really shows that same person, and no labeling error systematically swaps or confuses identities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CHIRLA is a valid long-term benchmark, state-of-the-art Re-ID models are not ready for months-long indoor identity matching: the best long-term CMC@1 is 18.81% and the best mAP 23.24%.
  • Appearance-based tracking helps overall, but not after occlusions: the best full-test MOTA is 68.84, while the best MOTA on brief-occlusion and multi-person-occlusion subsets falls to 12.42 and 21.83, so maintaining identity through occlusion remains an open problem.
  • The open-set protocol with unknown distractor IDs provides a concrete way to evaluate decision thresholds for rejecting strangers, something closed-set CMC and mAP cannot measure.
  • Because CHIRLA provides continuous synchronized video and higher-resolution crops, methods that combine temporal continuity, face appearance, and body appearance can be assessed together, which cropped-image clothing-change datasets do not permit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the long-term scores are representative, practical indoor identity systems should not rely on clothing or body appearance alone; face, gait, or other stable cues would be needed for months-long tracking.
  • Editorial inference: the dataset's roughly 44,000 boxes per identity make it possible to test tracklet-level or temporal-aggregation Re-ID models that exploit within-session appearance consistency, an avenue the paper does not explore.
  • Editorial inference: because the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement or label-error rate, a random-subset re-labeling study would calibrate how much of the benchmark difficulty is real appearance change versus annotation noise.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CHIRLA, a video-based person re-identification dataset recorded over seven months in an indoor office environment using seven synchronized cameras. It contains 10 sequences, 22 individuals, roughly 963,000 annotated bounding boxes, and semi-automatic identity labels produced with YOLOv8 detections, Deep SORT tracklets, and manual GUI review. The authors define separate benchmark protocols for person tracking (brief occlusions and multiple-person occlusions) and for Re-ID (reappearance, long-term, multi-camera, and multi-camera long-term), and they report extensive evaluations with trackers and CNN/Transformer Re-ID models. The main empirical claims are that the dataset is challenging, with the best long-term Re-ID result at 18.81% CMC@1, and that current appearance-based trackers degrade substantially in occlusion-focused scenarios.

Significance. If the identity labels are reliable, CHIRLA fills a real gap: it is a long-term, video-based, indoor Re-ID dataset with temporal coherence, clothing variation, multi-camera views, and roughly 44,000 bounding boxes per identity, which is substantially richer per ID than most existing clothing-change benchmarks. The public data and code, synchronized capture, ethical consent, and the breadth of evaluated models are concrete strengths. The low CMC and MOTA values support the paper's difficulty claim qualitatively. However, the central value of the dataset rests on the correctness of identity labels over seven months, and the manuscript provides no quantitative annotation-quality evidence for that assumption. The benchmark conclusions can therefore only be provisionally accepted until label consistency and annotation completeness are demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods, Procedure] The load-bearing assumption that the same ID refers to the same person across all seven months, ten sequences, and seven cameras is not validated. The Procedure section states that IDs were produced by YOLOv8 detections, Deep SORT tracklets, and manual review in a custom GUI, but no inter-annotator agreement, label error rate, or independent cross-sequence identity check is reported. Because the long-term Re-ID numbers in Table 4 (e.g., 18.81% CMC@1 for ResNet101) are exactly the quantities most sensitive to cross-month identity confusion, annotation noise could masquerade as appearance change. I ask the authors to add a quantitative validation: for example, re-annotate a random sample of frames by at least two annotators and report per-sequence and per-camera ID agreement, and/or run an independent face or whole-body verification check on cross-sequence ID pairs, with the resulting error rates and any corrected labels documented.
  2. [Methods, Procedure and Table 3] The manuscript's claim that CHIRLA is 'fully annotated' is contradicted by the sentence in the Procedure section: 'individuals are labeled only if they can be sufficiently identified; otherwise, their labels are removed.' Removing unidentifiable individuals means the ground truth is incomplete, which directly affects the tracking metrics in Table 3: detections of unlabeled people are counted as false positives, and missing ground truth inflates false negatives and distorts MOTA and IDF1. The paper should report how many frames and bounding boxes were removed for this reason, per sequence and camera, quantify the resulting impact on the metrics, and revise the 'fully annotated' claim to a precise statement of annotation coverage.
  3. [Technical Validation, Re-ID Benchmark and Table 4] The introduction lists 'Open-set evaluation with distractors' as a unique feature of CHIRLA, but the experimental section states that 'We restrict the experiments to closed-set evaluation... distractors (unknown IDs) provided by CHIRLA are excluded from the test set. We leave the open-set evaluation for future studies.' As a result, the claimed open-set protocol is not actually evaluated or validated anywhere in the paper. The authors should either provide an open-set evaluation with appropriate threshold-based metrics (e.g., identification rate at a controlled false-alarm rate) or remove the open-set claim from the dataset's advertised contributions.
  4. [Benchmark Data Preparation and Table 4] The benchmark results are averaged over manually selected train/test subsets, but no variance or per-subset statistics are reported. The selection procedure is described as 'prioritizing challenging scenarios,' which introduces a potential selection bias, and with only 7-10 subsets for the Re-ID scenarios, the averaged CMC and mAP values in Table 4 may not be stable enough to support fine-grained comparisons between models. I request per-subset results, standard deviations, or confidence intervals for at least the headline numbers (long-term and multi-camera long-term), so readers can judge whether observed differences are meaningful.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data Records, Table 2] The Subject IDs column includes values 24, 25, and 26 while the text states the dataset has 22 individuals; the authors should clarify the ID numbering scheme and which IDs are unused or reserved.
  2. [Table 1 and Data Records] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'CA VIAR' should be 'CAVIAR', 'A VI' should be 'AVI', and 'Video' entries for CHIRLA should be consistent with the '70 videos' count mentioned in the table caption.
  3. [Evaluation Metrics] Equation (6) contains the typo 'top-krank' and the CMC definition would be clearer if it explicitly stated that the indicator is evaluated over a single ground-truth match per query, as the surrounding text already notes.
  4. [Technical Validation] The sentence 'we present well-defined benchmarks, to rigorously tested our dataset' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten.
  5. [Table 4 caption] The exclusion of train_0 and test_0 from evaluation is stated only in the main text; this important protocol detail should also appear in the table caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a dataset and benchmark resource whose difficulty findings come from independent, externally pretrained models evaluated under manually defined protocols.

full rationale

CHIRLA is a dataset/benchmark contribution rather than a derivation chain, and I could not exhibit any step in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of its own inputs. The benchmark conclusions, including the headline 18.81% CMC@1 on the long-term Re-ID scenario, are obtained by running independently published models (ResNet, ResNet-IBN, ConvNext, ViT, Swin, etc.) with public pretrained weights from CentroidsReid, FastReid, and ReIDZoo against fixed train/test protocols; the difficulty of CHIRLA is therefore an empirical observation about those models, not a value forced by CHIRLA-specific fitted parameters. The identity labels were produced semi-automatically (YOLOv8 detections, Deep SORT tracklets, manual review in a custom GUI), but the Re-ID accuracy numbers are not derived from that labeling pipeline, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction structure. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the references to the authors' own GUI repository are auxiliary resources rather than evidence for the central claim. The paper's own statement that 'individuals are labeled only if they can be sufficiently identified; otherwise, their labels are removed' does tension with the abstract's 'fully annotated' description, and the lack of inter-annotator agreement or label-error statistics is a legitimate data-quality and correctness risk, but it is not a circularity: the benchmark numbers would be unreliable if labels are wrong, not because they are equivalent to the evaluation procedure by construction. Consequently, the honest finding is no significant circularity, and the score is 0.

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

The central contribution is a data resource, so the ledger mostly records benchmark-design thresholds and unverified annotation assumptions. There are no fitted physical parameters or invented entities.

free parameters (5)
  • occlusion_duration_window = 1-5 seconds
    Defines brief occlusions in the tracking benchmark; chosen by hand, not fitted to data.
  • long_occlusion_threshold = >5 seconds
    Defines the reappearance condition in the Re-ID benchmark; chosen by hand.
  • IoU_overlap_threshold = 0.3
    Required bounding-box overlap before an occlusion in the multiple-person scenario; chosen by hand.
  • sampling_gap = 18 frames (2.4 seconds)
    Sampling interval for Re-ID train and test frames; chosen by hand.
  • minimum_test_frames = 20
    Minimum number of frames per ID in Re-ID test sets; chosen by hand.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The semi-automatic annotation pipeline (YOLOv8 plus Deep SORT plus manual GUI review) yields correct identity labels.
    No quantitative verification such as inter-annotator agreement or label error rate is provided; this is load-bearing for all benchmark results.
  • domain assumption Volunteers followed the instruction to change clothing between sessions.
    The long-term clothing-change claim rests on participants actually changing appearance; no garment logs are provided beyond example frames.
  • domain assumption Cameras were synchronized closely enough for cross-camera analysis.
    Synchronization is described qualitatively (waiting for stable connections, disabling buffers, uniform capture frequency); no measured synchronization error is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CHIRLA: Comprehensive High-resolution Identification and Re-identification for Large-scale Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVU2OGYK

@misc{pith2026250206681,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CHIRLA: Comprehensive High-resolution Identification and Re-identification for Large-scale Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVU2OGYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06681}
}
read the original abstract

Person re-identification (Re-ID) is a key challenge in computer vision, requiring the matching of individuals across cameras, locations, and time. While most research focuses on short-term scenarios with minimal appearance changes, real-world applications demand robust systems that handle long-term variations caused by clothing and physical changes. We present CHIRLA, Comprehensive High-resolution Identification and Re-identification for Large-scale Analysis, a novel dataset designed for video-based long-term person Re-ID. CHIRLA was recorded over seven months in four connected indoor environments using seven strategically placed cameras, capturing realistic movements with substantial clothing and appearance variability. The dataset includes 22 individuals, more than five hours of video, and about 1M bounding boxes with identity annotations obtained through semi-automatic labeling. We also define benchmark protocols for person tracking and Re-ID, covering diverse and challenging scenarios such as occlusion, reappearance, and multi-camera conditions. By introducing this comprehensive benchmark, we aim to facilitate the development and evaluation of Re-ID algorithms that can reliably perform in challenging, long-term real-world scenarios. The benchmark code is publicly available at: https://github.com/bdager/CHIRLA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06681 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Position and orientation of the cameras within the environment 3/17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample frames of the point of view of each camera: C1-C4 (top row) and C5-C7 (bottom row). Hardware, Connection Architecture and Synchronization The hardware component of the system primarily consists of a network of cameras. The selected cameras are Reolink RLC￾410W, which are equipped with a 1/2.7" CMOS image sensor and deliver 5.0 megapixel resolution. Each camera features a 4.0 mm lens with an aperture of F/2.0,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GUI designed to enhance annotations. Benchmark Data Preparation After preparing the dataset annotations, we used them to convert the data into a format required for the benchmarks proposed in Section Technical Validation. Different train and test splits were created for each benchmark scenario. Data were initially generated automatically following the procedures described below, after which a manual selection proces… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Samples of train and test data for two IDs in the long-term Re-ID benchmark. The first row represents ID "2" from the CHIRLA dataset, captured by camera 5 at different time intervals. The second row represents ID "1", captured by camera 4 over time. These samples demon…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Random frames with the labels superimposed. Finally, the dataset is publicly available in the Science Data Bank data repository and can be accessed following the link https://doi.org/10.57760/sciencedb.20543. Organization The dataset is structured into three primary di…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Schwartz, W. R. & Davis, L. S. Learning discriminative appearance-based models using partial least squares. In2009 XXII Brazilian Symposium on Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 322–329, https://doi.org/10.1109/SIBGRAPI.2009.42 (2009)

    work page doi:10.1109/sibgrapi.2009.42 2009

  2. [2]

    C., Xiang, T

    Loy, C. C., Xiang, T. & Gong, S. Time-delayed correlation analysis for multi-camera activity understanding.Int. J. Comput. Vis.90, 106–129, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-010-0347-5 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11263-010-0347-5 2010

  3. [3]

    & Tao, H

    Gray, D. & Tao, H. Viewpoint invariant pedestrian recognition with an ensemble of localized features. In Forsyth, D., Torr, P. & Zisserman, A. (eds.)Computer Vision – ECCV 2008, 262–275, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88682-2_21 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88682-2_21 2008

  4. [4]

    S.et al.Custom pictorial structures for re-identification

    Cheng, D. S.et al.Custom pictorial structures for re-identification. InBmvc, vol. 1, 6, https://doi.org/10.5244/C.25.68 (Citeseer, 2011)

    work page doi:10.5244/c.25.68 2011

  5. [5]

    & Wang, X

    Li, W., Zhao, R., Xiao, T. & Wang, X. Deepreid: Deep filter pairing neural network for person re-identification. In2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 152–159, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2014.27 (2014)

    doi:10.1109/cvpr.2014.27 2014

  6. [6]

    & Roy-Chowdhury, A

    Das, A., Chakraborty, A. & Roy-Chowdhury, A. K. Consistent re-identification in a camera network. In Fleet, D., Pajdla, T., Schiele, B. & Tuytelaars, T. (eds.)Computer Vision – ECCV 2014, 330–345, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10605-2_22 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10605-2_22 2014

  7. [7]

    In2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 1116–1124, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV .2015.133 (2015)

    Zheng, L.et al.Scalable person re-identification: A benchmark. In2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 1116–1124, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV .2015.133 (2015)

    doi:10.1109/iccv 2015

  8. [8]

    In2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 3346–3355, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.357 (2017)

    Zheng, L.et al.Person re-identification in the wild. In2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 3346–3355, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.357 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.357 2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    & Tomasi, C

    Ristani, E., Solera, F., Zou, R., Cucchiara, R. & Tomasi, C. Performance measures and a data set for multi-target, multi-camera tracking. In Hua, G. & Jégou, H. (eds.)Computer Vision – ECCV 2016 Workshops, 17–35, https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-48881-3_2 (Springer Internati...

    2016

  2. [10]

    & Tian, Q

    Wei, L., Zhang, S., Gao, W. & Tian, Q. Person transfer gan to bridge domain gap for person re-identification. In2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 79–88, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2018.00016 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    In Leibe, B., Matas, J., Sebe, N

    Zheng, L.et al.Mars: A video benchmark for large-scale person re-identification. In Leibe, B., Matas, J., Sebe, N. & Welling, M. (eds.)Computer Vision – ECCV 2016, 868–884, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46466-4_52 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016)

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    & Zhang, J

    Zhang, P., Wu, Q., Xu, J. & Zhang, J. Long-term person re-identification using true motion from videos. In2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 494–502 (IEEE, 2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    & Zhong, Y

    Huang, Y ., Wu, Q., Xu, J. & Zhong, Y . Celebrities-reid: A benchmark for clothes variation in long-term person re- identification. InInternational Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2019. 8851957 (IEEE, 2019)

    doi

  6. [14]

    & Zheng, W.-S

    Yang, Q., Wu, A. & Zheng, W.-S. Person re-identification by contour sketch under moderate clothing change.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis Mach. Intell. (TPAMI)43, 2029–2046, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2960509 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    InProceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision (ACCV), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69535-4_5 (2020)

    Qian, X.et al.Long-term cloth-changing person re-identification. InProceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision (ACCV), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69535-4_5 (2020)

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    & Zhu, X

    Xu, P. & Zhu, X. Deepchange: A long-term person re-identification benchmark with clothes change. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 11196–11205, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV51070.2023. 01028 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    & Sun, J

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 770–778, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 (2016). 15/17

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    & Tang, X

    Pan, X., Luo, P., Shi, J. & Tang, X. Two at once: Enhancing learning and generalization capacities via ibn-net. In Ferrari, V ., Hebert, M., Sminchisescu, C. & Weiss, Y . (eds.)Computer Vision – ECCV 2018, 484–500, https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-01225-0_29 (Springer Intern...

    2018

  11. [19]

    In2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 11966–11976, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01167 (2022)

    Liu, Z.et al.A convnet for the 2020s. In2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 11966–11976, https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01167 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    In Karlinsky, L., Michaeli, T

    Maaz, M.et al.Edgenext: Efficiently amalgamated cnn-transformer architecture for mobile vision applications. In Karlinsky, L., Michaeli, T. & Nishino, K. (eds.)Computer Vision – ECCV 2022 Workshops, 3–20, https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-25082-8_1 (Springer Nature Switzerlan...

    2022

  13. [21]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1580–1589 (2020)

    Han, K.et al.Ghostnet: More features from cheap operations. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1580–1589 (2020). 22.Dosovitskiy, A.et al.An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale.ICLR(2021)

    2020

  14. [23]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 10012–10022 (2021)

    Liu, Z.et al.Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 10012–10022 (2021)

    2021

  15. [24]

    & Yan, S

    Yuan, L., Hou, Q., Jiang, Z., Feng, J. & Yan, S. V olo: Vision outlooker for visual recognition.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis machine intelligence45, 6575–6586 (2022)

    2022

  16. [25]

    Vasu, P. K. A., Gabriel, J., Zhu, J., Tuzel, O. & Ranjan, A. Fastvit: A fast hybrid vision transformer using structural reparameterization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 5785–5795 (2023)

    2023

  17. [26]

    & Ding, G

    Wang, A., Chen, H., Lin, Z., Han, J. & Ding, G. Repvit: Revisiting mobile cnn from vit perspective. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 15909–15920 (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    InEuropean conference on computer vision, 1–21 (Springer, 2022)

    Zhang, Y .et al.Bytetrack: Multi-object tracking by associating every detection box. InEuropean conference on computer vision, 1–21 (Springer, 2022)

    2022

  19. [28]

    & Bobrovsky, B.-Z

    Aharon, N., Orfaig, R. & Bobrovsky, B.-Z. Bot-sort: Robust associations multi-pedestrian tracking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14651(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [29]

    & Kitani, K

    Cao, J., Pang, J., Weng, X., Khirodkar, R. & Kitani, K. Observation-centric sort: Rethinking sort for robust multi-object tracking. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 9686–9696, https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.009...

    2023

  21. [30]

    & Kitani, K

    Maggiolino, G., Ahmad, A., Cao, J. & Kitani, K. Deep oc-sort: Multi-pedestrian tracking by adaptive re-identification. In 2023 IEEE International conference on image processing (ICIP), 3025–3029 (IEEE, 2023)

    2023

  22. [31]

    1109/TMM.2023.3240881 (2023)

    Du, Y .et al.Strongsort: Make deepsort great again.IEEE Transactions on Multimed.25, 8725–8737, https://doi.org/10. 1109/TMM.2023.3240881 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    Stanojevic, V . D. & Todorovic, B. T. Boosttrack: Boosting the similarity measure and detection confidence for improved multiple object tracking.Mach. Vis. Appl.35, 53, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00138-024-01531-5 (2024)

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    & Todorovi´c, B

    Stanojevi´c, V . & Todorovi´c, B. Boosttrack++: using tracklet information to detect more objects in multiple object tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13003https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.13003 (2024). 34.Jocher, G., Qiu, J. & Chaurasia, A. Ultralytics yolo8. https://git...

    2024 doi

  25. [35]

    & Paulus, D

    Wojke, N., Bewley, A. & Paulus, D. Simple online and realtime tracking with a deep association metric. In2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 3645–3649, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2017.8296962 (2017)

    2017

  26. [36]

    & Upcroft, B

    Bewley, A., Ge, Z., Ott, L., Ramos, F. & Upcroft, B. Simple online and realtime tracking. In2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 3464–3468, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2016.7533003 (2016)

    2016

  27. [37]

    & Stiefelhagen, R

    Bernardin, K. & Stiefelhagen, R. Evaluating multiple object tracking performance: the clear mot metrics.EURASIP J. on Image Video Process.2008, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/246309 (2008)

    2008 doi

  28. [38]

    & Schindler, K

    Milan, A., Leal-Taixé, L., Reid, I., Roth, S. & Schindler, K. Mot16: A benchmark for multi-object tracking. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.00831 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  29. [39]

    & Tao, H

    Gray, D., Brennan, S. & Tao, H. Evaluating appearance models for recognition, reacquisition, and tracking. InProc. IEEE International Workshop on Performance Evaluation for Tracking and Surveillance (PETS), vol. 3, 1–7, https: //vision.soe.ucsc.edu/node/177 (2007)

    2007

  30. [40]

    & Xiang, T

    Zhou, K., Yang, Y ., Cavallaro, A. & Xiang, T. Omni-scale feature learning for person re-identification. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 3702–3712 (2019). 16/17 41.Jocher, G. & Qiu, J. Ultralytics yolo11. https://github.com/ultralytics/ul...

    2019

  31. [42]

    & Zhou, X

    Wang, G., Yuan, Y ., Chen, X., Li, J. & Zhou, X. Learning discriminative features with multiple granularities for person re-identification. InProceedings of the 26th ACM international conference on Multimedia, 274–282 (2018)

    2018

  32. [43]

    & Jiang, W

    Luo, H., Gu, Y ., Liao, X., Lai, S. & Jiang, W. Bag of tricks and a strong baseline for deep person re-identification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 0–0 (2019)

    2019

  33. [44]

    Ye, M.et al.Deep learning for person re-identification: A survey and outlook.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis machine intelligence44, 2872–2893 (2021)

    2021

  34. [45]

    InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 9664–9667 (2023)

    He, L.et al.Fastreid: A pytorch toolbox for general instance re-identification. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 9664–9667 (2023)

    2023

  35. [46]

    & D ˛ abrowski, J

    Wieczorek, M., Rychalska, B. & D ˛ abrowski, J. On the unreasonable effectiveness of centroids in image retrieval. In International Conference on Neural Information Processing, 212–223 (Springer, 2021)

    2021

  36. [47]

    ERDF A way of making Europe

    Zuo, J.et al.Cross-video identity correlating for person re-identification pre-training.Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst.37, 25228–25250 (2024). Acknowledgements This paper is part of the grant PID2022-138453OB-I00 funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of ...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.