Added files for MOT17

[NishantSinghhhhh]

What type of PR is this?

/kind documentation
/kind feature
/kind cleanup

What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR completely revamps the examples/MOT17/multiedge_inference_bench example to elevate it to a "gold standard" of runnable documentation. It directly addresses the problems of poor usability, manual setup, and lack of clarity outlined in issue #231
The key improvements include:

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @NishantSinghhhhh, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces a comprehensive overhaul of the MOT17 multi-edge inference benchmark example. The primary goal is to transform it into a highly accessible and reproducible demonstration, providing a clear narrative for users to understand and run the benchmark. This involves establishing a well-defined environment, automating setup processes, and clearly documenting the system architecture and algorithm parameters.

Highlights

• Enhanced MOT17 Example: The existing MOT17 multi-edge inference benchmark example has been significantly revamped to improve user experience and documentation, aiming for a 'gold standard' runnable example.
• Automated Setup & Execution: New shell scripts (download_assets.sh and run_benchmark.sh) are introduced to automate asset management (though the provided download_assets.sh content is currently documentation) and simplify benchmark execution to a single command.
• Clear Configuration & Reproducibility: Configuration files (algorithm.yaml, testenv.yaml) are added with extensive comments and structured definitions for the multi-edge topology and algorithm hyperparameters. A requirements.txt is also added to ensure reproducible environments.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[NishantSinghhhhh]

@MooreZheng,

Could you please review this PR when you have a moment? I've aimed to overhaul the MOT17 benchmark example based on the new quality standards. Let me know if any changes are needed.

On a separate note, I was hoping to inquire if the Ianvs project plans to participate in the LFX Mentorship program for Term 3 this year.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The code changes introduce a new example for multi-edge inference benchmarking using the MOT17 dataset. The changes include configuration files, scripts for downloading assets and running the benchmark, and a requirements file. The most significant issue is that the download_assets.sh file contains documentation instead of an executable script. Additionally, the run_benchmark.sh script can be made more robust by determining the path relative to the script's location.

[MooreZheng]

The current challenge and solution are not super clear for reviewers. A few suggestions:

1. Establish a issue to describe what is wrong with the current MOT17 example.
2. Link this PR to the corresponding issue and point out how this PR solve the problems.

[kubeedge-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please assign moorezheng after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @moorezheng in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[NishantSinghhhhh]

Screencast.from.2025-08-02.23-05-20.webm

@MooreZheng I have made the MOT work, I have made a few changes in the structure of MOT17,

• I have added a workspace folder in which all the data to be processed is present and that in csv format
• report that is generated comes in reports folder inside pedestrian_tracking
• I had to change paths written in reid_job.yaml & tracking_job.yaml

Can you review my PR and tell me if any changes are required, I have attached a video too, in which the report is successfully generated

[NishantSinghhhhh]

@MooreZheng sir, can you please review the changes

[MooreZheng]

@MooreZheng sir, can you please review the changes

This PR tackles Issue #231. Our KubeEdge-ianvs reviewer @hsj576 might also want to take a look at the PR first.

[hsj576]

Overall, this PR looks fine to me, but the author need to merge the commits into a single commit.

[NishantSinghhhhh]

@hsj576 @MooreZheng , I have rebased the PR and now there is only 1 commit

[hsj576]

/lgtm

[MooreZheng]

Overall, it looks fine. A few suggestions:

1. Use Python logger instead of print.
2. Use Kaggle, rather than the Ianvs Github repo, to store the PDF and CSV so that the repo will not get too large for developers.

[NishantSinghhhhh]

@MooreZheng sir , i will make the changes and commit

[NishantSinghhhhh]

@MooreZheng sir I have changed the readme can you tell me

are these the correct headings I have added, and id yes then what should I be adding in the docs for "Pedestrian Tracking on Multiple Object Tracking"

what all should I be changing in the docs ?

[NishantSinghhhhh]

@MooreZheng , sorry sir I will not be able to attend todays community meet, I am extremely sorry for this

I am not at my college today, so I will not be able to Today's meet

[NishantSinghhhhh]

@MooreZheng sir I have added the docs in readme, can you please review the docs I have added and tell me if any changes are required