The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparative Study of Energy Minimization Methods for Markov Random Fields with Smoothness-Based Priors
Open accessAbstract
Among the most exciting advances in early vision has been the development of efficient energy minimization algorithms for pixel-labeling tasks such as depth or texture computation. It has been known for decades that such problems can be elegantly expressed as Markov random fields, yet the resulting energy minimization problems have been widely viewed as intractable. Recently, algorithms such as graph cuts and loopy belief propagation (LBP) have proven to be very powerful: for example, such methods form the basis for almost all the top-performing stereo methods. However, the tradeoffs among different energy minimization algorithms are still not well understood. In this paper we describe a set of energy minimization benchmarks and use them to compare the solution quality and running time of several common energy minimization algorithms. We investigate three promising recent methods graph cuts, LBP, and tree-reweighted message passing in addition to the well-known older iterated conditional modes (ICM) algorithm. Our benchmark problems are drawn from published energy functions used for stereo, image stitching, interactive segmentation, and denoising. We also provide a general-purpose software interface that allows vision researchers to easily switch between optimization methods. Benchmarks, code, images, and results are available at http://vision.middlebury.edu/MRF/.
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
Fast approximate energy minimization via graph cuts
Boykov, Y., Veksler, O., & Zabih, R. (2001) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.969114 · Cited by 6,988
Self-citation
Cited by
Tumor-Cut: Segmentation of Brain Tumors on Contrast Enhanced MR Images for Radiosurgery Applications
Hamamci, A., Kucuk, N., Karaman, K., Engin, K., & Unal, G. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2011.2181857 · Cited by 286
Extended depth-of-field via focus stacking and graph cuts
Zhang, C., Bastian, J., Shen, C., van den Hengel, A., & Shen, T. (2013) · 2013 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/icip.2013.6738262 · Cited by 11
Massively parallel GPU computing for fast stereo correspondence algorithms
Wang, H., Zhang, N., Créput, J.-C., Ruichek, Y., & Moreau, J. (2016) · Journal of Systems Architecture · doi:10.1016/j.sysarc.2016.03.002 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Szeliski, R., Zabih, R., Scharstein, D., Veksler, O., Kolmogorov, V., Agarwala, A., Tappen, M., & Rother, C.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1068-1080
- ISSN
- 0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2107884096
- Cited by
- 966
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 112.17
- 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: A Comparative Study of Energy Minimization Methods for Markov Random Fields with Smoothness-Based Priors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tpami.2007.70844
- The paper
- Szeliski, R., Zabih, R., Scharstein, D., Veksler, O., Kolmogorov, V., Agarwala, A., Tappen, M., & Rother, C. (2008). A Comparative Study of Energy Minimization Methods for Markov Random Fields with Smoothness-Based Priors. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpami.2007.70844
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.