Cited by 955Advanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesImage and Object Detection Techniques

A performance evaluation of local descriptors

Open access
Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C.·2003·2003 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2003. Proceedings.

Abstract

In this paper we compare the performance of interest point descriptors. Many different descriptors have been proposed in the literature. However, it is unclear which descriptors are more appropriate and how their performance depends on the interest point detector. The descriptors should be distinctive and at the same time robust to changes in viewing conditions as well as to errors of the point detector. Our evaluation uses as criterion detection rate with respect to false positive rate and is carried out for different image transformations. We compare SIFT descriptors (Lowe, 1999), steerable filters (Freeman and Adelson, 1991), differential invariants (Koenderink ad van Doorn, 1987), complex filters (Schaffalitzky and Zisserman, 2002), moment invariants (Van Gool et al., 1996) and cross-correlation for different types of interest points. In this evaluation, we observe that the ranking of the descriptors does not depend on the point detector and that SIFT descriptors perform best. Steerable filters come second ; they can be considered a good choice given the low dimensionality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2003.1211478

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Distribution-based descriptors capture a substantial amount of information about spatial intensity patterns while being robust to small deformations or localisation errors.

    “This can be explained by the fact that they capture a substantial amount of information about the spatial intensity patterns, while at the same time being robust to small deformations or localisation errors.”

    From SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features (2006) · cites this paper as [7]

  • The SIFT descriptor outperforms other feature descriptors.

    “The latter, introduced by Lowe [2], have been shown to outperform the others [7].”

    From SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features (2006) · cites this paper as [7]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mikolajczyk, K., & Schmid, C.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
2003 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2003. Proceedings.
Published
2003-11-20
Volume
2
Pages
II-257-II-263
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129116707
Cited by
955
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 50
FWCI
55.37
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Object Detection Techniques
Keywords
local descriptors, SIFT, steerable filters, differential invariants, complex filters, moment invariants, cross correlation function, detection rate, false positive rate, image transformation, descriptor robustness

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