The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An experimental comparison of range image segmentation algorithms
Abstract
A methodology for evaluating range image segmentation algorithms is proposed. This methodology involves (1) a common set of 40 laser range finder images and 40 structured light scanner images that have manually specified ground truth and (2) a set of defined performance metrics for instances of correctly segmented, missed, and noise regions, over- and under-segmentation, and accuracy of the recovered geometry. A tool is used to objectively compare a machine generated segmentation against the specified ground truth. Four research groups have contributed to evaluate their own algorithm for segmenting a range image into planar patches.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Vehicle detection in aerial imagery : A small target detection benchmark
Razakarivony, S., & Jurie, F. (2016) · Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation · doi:10.1016/j.jvcir.2015.11.002 · Cited by 916
Simultaneous Localization, Mapping and Moving Object Tracking
Wang, C.-C., Thorpe, C., Thrun, S., Hebert, M., & Durrant-Whyte, H. (2007) · The International Journal of Robotics Research · doi:10.1177/0278364907081229 · Cited by 596
Activity Recognition of Assembly Tasks Using Body-Worn Microphones and Accelerometers
Ward, J. A., Lukowicz, P., Troster, G., & Starner, T. E. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2006.197 · Cited by 431
Performance metrics for activity recognition
Ward, J. A., Lukowicz, P., & Gellersen, H. W. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/1889681.1889687 · Cited by 182
Romero, B. E., & Bray, T. L. (2014) · World Archaeology · doi:10.1080/00438243.2014.890910 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoover, A., Jean-Baptiste, G., Jiang, X., Flynn, P. J., Bunke, H., Goldgof, D. B., Bowyer, K., Eggert, D. W., Fitzgibbon, A., & Fisher, R. B.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
- Published
- 1996-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 673-689
- ISSN
- 0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-9292
- OpenAlex
- W2075690349
- Cited by
- 790
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
