Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 566

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Robust Point Matching via Vector Field Consensus

Open access
Ma, Jiayi, Zhao, Ji, Tian, Jinwen, Yuille, Alan L., Tu, Zhuowen·2014·IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

Abstract

In this paper, we propose an efficient algorithm, called vector field consensus, for establishing robust point correspondences between two sets of points. Our algorithm starts by creating a set of putative correspondences which can contain a very large number of false correspondences, or outliers, in addition to a limited number of true correspondences (inliers). Next, we solve for correspondence by interpolating a vector field between the two point sets, which involves estimating a consensus of inlier points whose matching follows a nonparametric geometrical constraint. We formulate this a maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation of a Bayesian model with hidden/latent variables indicating whether matches in the putative set are outliers or inliers. We impose nonparametric geometrical constraints on the correspondence, as a prior distribution, using Tikhonov regularizers in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. MAP estimation is performed by the EM algorithm which by also estimating the variance of the prior model (initialized to a large value) is able to obtain good estimates very quickly (e.g., avoiding many of the local minima inherent in this formulation). We illustrate this method on data sets in 2D and 3D and demonstrate that it is robust to a very large number of outliers (even up to 90%). We also show that in the special case where there is an underlying parametric geometrical model (e.g., the epipolar line constraint) that we obtain better results than standard alternatives like RANSAC if a large number of outliers are present. This suggests a two-stage strategy, where we use our nonparametric model to reduce the size of the putative set and then apply a parametric variant of our approach to estimate the geometric parameters. Our algorithm is computationally efficient and we provide code for others to use it. In addition, our approach is general and can be applied to other problems, such as learning with a badly corrupted training data set.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tip.2014.2307478

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 69 references

Cited by

See all 566

Metadata

Authors
Ma, J., Zhao, J., Tian, J., Yuille, A. L., & Tu, Z.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
Published
2014-04
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
1706-1721
ISSN
  • 1057-7149 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-0042
OpenAlex
W2071730188
Cited by
566
References
69
FWCI
46.36
Type
journal article
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: Robust Point Matching via Vector Field Consensus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tip.2014.2307478
The paper
Ma, J., Zhao, J., Tian, J., Yuille, A. L., & Tu, Z. (2014). Robust Point Matching via Vector Field Consensus. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. https://doi.org/10.1109/tip.2014.2307478

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.