Zihang Lai, Erika Lu, Weidi Xie
Recent interest in self-supervised dense tracking has yielded rapid progress, but performance still remains far from supervised methods. We propose a dense tracking model trained on videos without any annotations that surpasses previous self-supervised methods on existing benchmarks by a significant margin (+15%), and achieves performance comparable to supervised methods. In this paper, we first reassess the traditional choices used for self-supervised training and reconstruction loss by conducting thorough experiments that finally elucidate the optimal choices. Second, we further improve on existing methods by augmenting our architecture with a crucial memory component. Third, we benchmark on large-scale semi-supervised video object segmentation(aka. dense tracking), and propose a new metric: generalizability. Our first two contributions yield a self-supervised network that for the first time is competitive with supervised methods on standard evaluation metrics of dense tracking. When measuring generalizability, we show self-supervised approaches are actually superior to the majority of supervised methods. We believe this new generalizability metric can better capture the real-world use-cases for dense tracking, and will spur new interest in this research direction.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Mean) | 67.6 | MAST |
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Recall) | 77.7 | MAST |
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | J&F | 65.5 | MAST |
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Mean) | 63.3 | MAST |
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Recall) | 73.2 | MAST |
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Mean) | 67.6 | MAST |
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Recall) | 77.7 | MAST |
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | J&F | 65.5 | MAST |
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Mean) | 63.3 | MAST |
| Video | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Recall) | 73.2 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Mean) | 67.6 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Recall) | 77.7 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | J&F | 65.5 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Mean) | 63.3 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Recall) | 73.2 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Mean) | 67.6 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Recall) | 77.7 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | J&F | 65.5 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Mean) | 63.3 | MAST |
| Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Recall) | 73.2 | MAST |
| Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Mean) | 67.6 | MAST |
| Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | F-measure (Recall) | 77.7 | MAST |
| Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | J&F | 65.5 | MAST |
| Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Mean) | 63.3 | MAST |
| Semi-Supervised Video Object Segmentation | DAVIS 2017 (val) | Jaccard (Recall) | 73.2 | MAST |