New evaluation metrics for mesh segmentation

被引:17
|
作者
Liu, Zhenbao [1 ]
Tang, Sicong [1 ]
Bu, Shuhui [1 ]
Zhang, Hao [2 ]
机构
[1] Northwestern Polytech Univ, Xian, Peoples R China
[2] Simon Fraser Univ, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada
来源
COMPUTERS & GRAPHICS-UK | 2013年 / 37卷 / 06期
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Mesh segmentation; Evaluation metric; Similarity Hamming Distance; Adaptive Entropy Increment; CO-SEGMENTATION; 3D SHAPES;
D O I
10.1016/j.cag.2013.05.021
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
3D model segmentation avails to skeleton extraction, shape partial matching, shape correspondence, texture mapping, shape deformation, and shape annotation. Many excellent solutions have been proposed in the last decade. How to efficiently evaluate these methods and impartially compare their performances are important issues. Since the Princeton segmentation benchmark has been proposed, their four representative metrics have been extensively adopted to evaluate segmentation algorithms. However, comparison to only a fixed ground-truth is problematic because objects have many semantic segmentations, hence we propose two novel metrics to support comparison with multiple ground-truth segmentations, which are named Similarity Hamming Distance (SHD) and Adaptive Entropy Increment (AEI). SHD is based on partial similarity correspondences between automatic segmentation and ground-truth segmentations, and AEI measures entropy change when an automatic segmentation is added to a set of different ground-truth segmentations. A group of experiments demonstrates that the metrics are able to provide relatively higher discriminative power and stability when evaluating different hierarchical segmentations, and also provide an effective evaluation more consistent with human perception. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:553 / 564
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A comparative study of existing metrics for 3D-mesh segmentation evaluation
    Halim Benhabiles
    Jean-Philippe Vandeborre
    Guillaume Lavoué
    Mohamed Daoudi
    The Visual Computer, 2010, 26 : 1451 - 1466
  • [2] A comparative study of existing metrics for 3D-mesh segmentation evaluation
    Benhabiles, Halim
    Vandeborre, Jean-Philippe
    Lavoue, Guillaume
    Daoudi, Mohamed
    VISUAL COMPUTER, 2010, 26 (12): : 1451 - 1466
  • [3] New Measure for Objective Evaluation of Mesh Segmentation Algorithms
    Zakani, Fatima Rafii
    Arhid, Khadija
    Bouksim, Mohcine
    Aboulfatah, Mohamed
    Gadi, Taoufiq
    2016 4TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CIST), 2016, : 416 - 421
  • [4] New Evaluation Method for 3D Mesh Segmentation
    Bouksim, Mohcine
    Zakani, Fatima Rafii
    Arhid, Khadija
    Aboulfatah, Mohamed
    Gadi, Taoufiq
    2016 4TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CIST), 2016, : 438 - 443
  • [5] Evaluation metrics for bone segmentation in ultrasound
    Lougheed, Matthew
    Fichtinger, Gabor
    Ungi, Tamas
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2015: IMAGE-GUIDED PROCEDURES, ROBOTIC INTERVENTIONS, AND MODELING, 2015, 9415
  • [6] On Segmentation Evaluation Metrics and Region Counts
    Hanbury, Allan
    Stoettinger, Julian
    19TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PATTERN RECOGNITION, VOLS 1-6, 2008, : 1566 - 1569
  • [7] Quantitative Evaluation Metrics for Superpixel Segmentation
    Stewart, Dylan
    Zare, Alina
    Cobb, J. Tory
    DETECTION AND SENSING OF MINES, EXPLOSIVE OBJECTS, AND OBSCURED TARGETS XXIII, 2018, 10628
  • [8] A comparative evaluation of metrics for fast mesh simplification
    van Kaick, Oliver Matias
    Pedrini, Helio
    COMPUTER GRAPHICS FORUM, 2006, 25 (02) : 197 - 210
  • [9] SortedAP: Rethinking evaluation metrics for instance segmentation
    Chen, Long
    Wu, Yuli
    Stegmaier, Johannes
    Merhof, Dorit
    2023 IEEE/CVF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER VISION WORKSHOPS, ICCVW, 2023, : 3925 - 3931
  • [10] Survey of Evaluation Metrics and Methods for Semantic Segmentation
    Yu, Ying
    Wang, Chunping
    Fu, Qiang
    Kou, Renke
    Wu, Weiyi
    Liu, Tianyong
    Computer Engineering and Applications, 2023, 59 (06) : 57 - 69