Meta-Evaluation of Image Segmentation Using Machine Learning
Abstract
Image segmentation is a fundamental step in many computer vision applications. Generally, the choice of a segmentation algorithm, or parameterization of a given algorithm, is selected at the application level and fixed for all images within that application. Our goal is to create a stand-alone method to evaluate segmentation quality. Stand-alone methods have the advantage that they do not require a manually-segmented reference image for comparison, and can therefore be used for real-time evaluation. Current stand-alone evaluation methods often work well for some types of images, but poorly for others. We propose a meta-evaluation method in which any set of base evaluation methods are combined by a machine learning algorithm that coalesces their evaluations based on a learned weighting function, which depends upon the image to be segmented. The training data used by the machine learning algorithm can be labeled by a human, based on similarity to a human-generated reference segmentation, or based upon system-level performance. Experimental results demonstrate that our method performs better than the existing stand-alone segmentation evaluation methods.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The meta-evaluation framework [23] does not allow estimation of segmentation performance on an individual image level.
“Another stand-alone method is to consider a meta-evaluation framework, where image features are used in a machine learning setting to provide a ranking of different methods [23]. But this does not allow the estimation of segmentation performance on an individual image level.”
From Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth (2017) · cites this paper as [23]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth
Valindria, V. V., Lavdas, I., Bai, W., Kamnitsas, K., Aboagye, E. O., Rockall, A. G., Rueckert, D., & Glocker, B. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2017.2665165 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, H., Cholleti, S., Goldman, S. A., & Fritts, J. E.
- Affiliations
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Saint Louis University (US)
- ORCID
- Hui Zhang
- Venue
- 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Volume 1 (CVPR'06)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2006-07-10
- Volume
- 1
- Pages
- 1138-1145
- ISSN
- 1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2111498234
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- image segmentation, segmentation quality assessment, meta-evaluation, real-time assessment
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