Organizations: Graduate School of Information Science, University of Hyogo, Hyogo, Japan · Research Center for Integrative Evolutionary Science, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Kanagawa, Japan · Institute for the Future of Human Society, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
The social structures of group-living animals such as feral horses are diverse and remain insufficiently understood, even within a single species. To investigate group dynamics, aerial videos are often utilized to track individuals and analyze their movement trajectories, which are essential for evaluating inter-individual interactions and comparing social behaviors. Accurate individual tracking is therefore crucial. In multi-animal tracking, axis-aligned bounding boxes (bboxes) are widely used; however, for aerial top-view footage of entire groups, their performance degrades due to complex backgrounds, small target sizes, high animal density, and varying body orientations. To address this issue, we employ oriented bounding boxes (OBBs), which include rotation angles and reduce unnecessary background. Nevertheless, current OBB detectors such as YOLO-OBB restrict angles within a 180∘ range, making it impossible to distinguish head from tail and often causing sudden 180∘ flips across frames, which severely disrupts continuous tracking. To overcome this limitation, we propose a head-orientation estimation method that crops OBB-centered patches, applies three detectors (head, tail, and head-tail), and determines the final label through IoU-based majority voting. Experiments using 299 test images show that our method achieves 99.3% accuracy, outperforming individual models, demonstrating its effectiveness for robust OBB-based tracking.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed method which consists of (1) individual detection, (2) part localization, and (3) rotation-aware tracking
Figure 2: Overview of the majority voting process
Model
Head Det. Accuracy
Proposed Method
99.3 % (297/299)
Head-tail Detection model
99.0 % (296/299)
Head Detection model
98.0 % (293/299)
Tail Detection model
98.0 % (293/299)
Table 1: Comparison results of Experiment 1.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of head estimation.