The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Matching with PROSAC — Progressive Sample Consensus
Open accessAbstract
A new robust matching method is proposed. The progressive sample consensus (PROSAC) algorithm exploits the linear ordering defined on the set of correspondences by a similarity function used in establishing tentative correspondences. Unlike RANSAC, which treats all correspondences equally and draws random samples uniformly from the full set, PROSAC samples are drawn from progressively larger sets of top-ranked correspondences. Under the mild assumption that the similarity measure predicts correctness of a match better than random guessing, we show that PROSAC achieves large computational savings. Experiments demonstrate it is often significantly faster (up to more than hundred times) than RANSAC. For the derived size of the sampled set of correspondences as a function of the number of samples already drawn, PROSAC converges towards RANSAC in the worst case. The power of the method is demonstrated on wide-baseline matching problems.
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
Cites
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Lowe, D. G. (2004) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1023/b:visi.0000029664.99615.94 · Cited by 55,589
Fischler, M. A., & Bolles, R. C. (1981) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/358669.358692 · Cited by 25,893
Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision
Hartley, R., & Zisserman, A. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811685 · Cited by 21,070
Video Google: a text retrieval approach to object matching in videos
Sivic, & Zisserman (2003) · Proceedings Ninth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv.2003.1238663 · Cited by 6,367
Cited by
ORB: An efficient alternative to SIFT or SURF
Rublee, E., Rabaud, V., Konolige, K., & Bradski, G. (2011) · 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision · doi:10.1109/iccv.2011.6126544 · Cited by 11,037
Image Matching from Handcrafted to Deep Features: A Survey
Ma, J., Jiang, X., Fan, A., Jiang, J., & Yan, J. (2021) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-020-01359-2 · Cited by 990
Visual Odometry : Part II: Matching, Robustness, Optimization, and Applications
Fraundorfer, F., & Scaramuzza, D. (2012) · IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine · doi:10.1109/mra.2012.2182810 · Cited by 620
Ma, J., Zhao, J., Jiang, J., Zhou, H., & Guo, X. (2019) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-018-1117-z · Cited by 601
A review of multimodal image matching: Methods and applications
Jiang, X., Ma, J., Xiao, G., Shao, Z., & Guo, X. (2021) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.02.012 · Cited by 532
Metadata
- Authors
- Chum, O., & Matas, J.
- Venue
- 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2005-07-27
- Volume
- 1
- Pages
- 220-226
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2106199912
- Cited by
- 1,096
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.68
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Matching with PROSAC — Progressive Sample Consensus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/cvpr.2005.221
- The paper
- Chum, O., & Matas, J. (2005). Matching with PROSAC — Progressive Sample Consensus. 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05). https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2005.221
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.
