Cited by 32Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Meta-Evaluation of Image Segmentation Using Machine Learning

Hui Zhang, Cholleti, S., Goldman, S.A., Fritts, J.E.·2006·2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Volume 1 (CVPR'06)

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

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2006.185

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • 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.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, H., Cholleti, S., Goldman, S. A., & Fritts, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Saint Louis University (US)
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