Cited by 6,723Advanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesImage and Object Detection Techniques

A performance evaluation of local descriptors

Open access
Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C.·2005·IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

Abstract

In this paper, we compare the performance of descriptors computed for local interest regions, as, for example, extracted by the Harris-Affine detector [Mikolajczyk, K and Schmid, C, 2004]. Many different descriptors have been proposed in the literature. It is unclear which descriptors are more appropriate and how their performance depends on the interest region detector. The descriptors should be distinctive and at the same time robust to changes in viewing conditions as well as to errors of the detector. Our evaluation uses as criterion recall with respect to precision and is carried out for different image transformations. We compare shape context [Belongie, S, et al., April 2002], steerable filters [Freeman, W and Adelson, E, Setp. 1991], PCA-SIFT [Ke, Y and Sukthankar, R, 2004], differential invariants [Koenderink, J and van Doorn, A, 1987], spin images [Lazebnik, S, et al., 2003], SIFT [Lowe, D. G., 1999], complex filters [Schaffalitzky, F and Zisserman, A, 2002], moment invariants [Van Gool, L, et al., 1996], and cross-correlation for different types of interest regions. We also propose an extension of the SIFT descriptor and show that it outperforms the original method. Furthermore, we observe that the ranking of the descriptors is mostly independent of the interest region detector and that the SIFT-based descriptors perform best. Moments and steerable filters show the best performance among the low dimensional descriptors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tpami.2005.188

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • GLOH is more distinctive than SIFT with the same number of dimensions but is computationally more expensive.

    “In the same paper [8], the authors have proposed a variant of SIFT, called GLOH, which proved to be even more distinctive with the same number of dimensions. However, GLOH is computationally more expensive.”

    From SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features (2006) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Multimodal fusion combines sources such as vision, language, depth, LiDAR, and speech to enhance scene semantic understanding.

    “It combines various sources of information, such as vision, language, depth data, lidar, and speech, to enhance the capability of scene semantic understanding [35,36,37].”
  • Hessian-based detectors are more stable and repeatable than their Harris-based counterparts.

    “By studying the existing detectors and from published comparisons [15, 8], we can conclude that (1) Hessian-based detectors are more stable and repeatable than their Harris-based counterparts.”

    From SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features (2006) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Using the determinant of the Hessian matrix rather than its trace (the Laplacian) is advantageous, as it fires less on elongated, ill-localised structures.

    “Using the determinant of the Hessian matrix rather than its trace (the Laplacian) seems advantageous, as it fires less on elongated, ill-localised structures.”

    From SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features (2006) · cites this paper as [8]

  • PCA-SIFT yields a 36-dimensional descriptor that is fast for matching but less distinctive than SIFT, and slower feature computation reduces the effect of fast matching.

    “This PCA-SIFT yields a 36dimensional descriptor which is fast for matching, but proved to be less distinctive than SIFT in a second comparative study by Mikolajczyk et al. [8] and slower feature computation reduces the effect of fast matching.”

    From SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features (2006) · cites this paper as [8]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mikolajczyk, K., & Schmid, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
Published
2005-10
Volume
27
Issue
10
Pages
1615-1630
ISSN
0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2177274842
Cited by
6,723
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 144 · 2022: 192 · 2021: 220 · 2020: 203 · 2019: 252 · 2018: 308 · 2017: 393 · 2016: 468 · 2015: 502 · 2014: 534 · 2013: 580 · 2012: 496
FWCI
288.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Object Detection Techniques
Keywords
local descriptors, SIFT, PCA-SIFT, shape context, steerable filters, spin images, moment invariants, differential invariants, complex filters, cross correlation function, descriptor robustness, image transformation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Software, Software Validation, Models, Statistical, Information Storage and Retrieval

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