Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Illustration of DO-Conv.

The deep convolution and conventional convolution kernel are included in DO-Conv. ∘ means the depthwise convolution operator and * means convolution operator.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Illustration of DOSiam.

It consists of the feature extraction subnetwork and cross-correlation operation. The feature extraction subnetwork contains conventional convolution layers and DO-Conv.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Ablation study on different convolution layers.

DOSiam achieves the best tracking performance when the DO-Conv is placed in the second layer.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

Comparison with state-of-the-art tracking algorithms.

The tracker DOSiam gets best tracking results in challenging environments of fast motion, scale variation, motion blur, in-plane and out-plane rotations.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Precision and success plots on OTB2015.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Precision and success rate on OTB2015.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Precision and success plots of OPE.

Our tracker has good tracking performance in challenge environments fast motion, in-plane rotation, motion blur and the success rate and precision rate in these challenge environments are OTB2015 benchmark tested.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

A comparison of the DOSiam with state-of-the-art trackers in terms of success rate and precision on OTB2015 with different attributes.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

A comparison of the DOSiam with state-of-the-art trackers of precision and success rate in terms of fast motion, in-plane rotation, motion blur and scale variation.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

A comparison of the DOSiam with state-of-the-art trackers in terms of success rate and precision on VOT2016 and VOT2018 with different attributes, respectively.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 2.

Comparison with state-of-the-art trackers on VOT2016 in terms of EAO, A and R.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Comparison with state-of-the-art trackers on VOT2018 in terms of EAO, A and R.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Comparison with SiamFC on VOT2019-RGBT(TIR) in terms of EAO, A, R and FPS.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Comparison with SiamFC in terms of accuracy in some attributes on VOT2019-RGBT(TIR).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 10.

A comparison of the DOSiam with state-of-the-art trackers in GOT-10k.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Table 6.

Comparison with state-of-the-art trackers on GOT-10k in terms of AO and SR0.5.

More »

Table 6 Expand