Fig. 1. Comparison results of sample extraction. (a) Traditional CFS sample extraction results; (b) Results of TBACF sample extraction

Fig. 2. Tracking flow chart of TBACF algorithm

Fig. 3. Precision and success rate scores of six algorithms on OTB-2015 dataset. (a) Precision score; (b) success rate score

Fig. 4. Tracking precision scores of six algorithms on eleven attribute sequences. (a) Precision plots of low resolution; (b) precision plots of out-of-view; (c) precision plots of motion blur; (d) precision plots of background clutter; (e) precision plots of illumination variation; (f) precision plots of fast motion; (g) precision plots of deformation; (h) precision plots of occlusion; (i) precision plots of in-plane rotation; (j) precision plots of out-plane rotation; (k) precision plots of scale vari

Fig. 5. Tracking success rate scores of six algorithms on eleven attribute sequences. (a) Success rate scores of low resolution; (b) success rate scores of out-of-view; (c) success rate scores of motion blur; (d) success rate scores of background clutter; (e) success rate scores of illumination variation; (f) success rate scores of fast motion; (g) success rate scores of deformation; (h) success rate scores of occlusion; (i) success rate scores of in-plane rotation; (j) success rate scores of out-of-pla

Fig. 6. Tracking results of six algorithms in three cases as occlusion of target, off-plane rotation of target, and background ambiguity

Table 1. Testing results of six algorithms on OTB-2015 dataset