The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empirical evaluation of dissimilarity measures for color and texture
Abstract
This paper empirically compares nine image dissimilarity measures that are based on distributions of color and texture features summarizing over 1,000 CPU hours of computational experiments. Ground truth is collected via a novel random sampling scheme for color and via an image partitioning method for texture. Quantitative performance evaluations are given for classification, image retrieval, and segmentation tasks, and for a wide variety of dissimilarity measures. It is demonstrated how the selection of a measure, based on large scale evaluation, substantially improves the quality of classification, retrieval, and unsupervised segmentation of color and texture images.
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
A Computational Approach to Edge Detection
Canny, J. (1986) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.1986.4767851 · Cited by 30,004
A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions
Ojala, T., Pietikäinen, M., & Harwood, D. (1996) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/0031-3203(95)00067-4 · Cited by 6,882
A Probabilistic Theory of Pattern Recognition
Devroye, L., Györfi, L., & Lugosi, G. (1996) · Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0711-5 · Cited by 3,274
Cited by
Comaniciu, D., Ramesh, V., & Meer, P. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2003.1195991 · Cited by 4,560
Metadata
- Authors
- Puzicha, J., Buhmann, J. M., Rubner, Y., & Tomasi, C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 1999
- Pages
- 1165-1172 vol.2
- OpenAlex
- W2160063258
- Cited by
- 361
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.45
- Type
- conference paper
- 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.
