  The problem of visual tracking evaluation is sporting a large variety of
performance measures, and largely suffers from lack of consensus about which
measures should be used in experiments. This makes the cross-paper tracker
comparison difficult. Furthermore, as some measures may be less effective than
others, the tracking results may be skewed or biased towards particular
tracking aspects. In this paper we revisit the popular performance measures and
tracker performance visualizations and analyze them theoretically and
experimentally. We show that several measures are equivalent from the point of
information they provide for tracker comparison and, crucially, that some are
more brittle than the others. Based on our analysis we narrow down the set of
potential measures to only two complementary ones, describing accuracy and
robustness, thus pushing towards homogenization of the tracker evaluation
methodology. These two measures can be intuitively interpreted and visualized
and have been employed by the recent Visual Object Tracking (VOT) challenges as
the foundation for the evaluation methodology.
