New benchmark for image segmentation evaluation
Abstract
Image segmentation and its performance evaluation are very difficult but important problems in computer vision. A major challenge in segmentation evaluation comes from the fundamental conflict between generality and objectivity: For general-purpose segmentation, the ground truth and segmentation accuracy may not be well defined, while embedding the evaluation in a specific application, the evaluation results may not be extensible to other applications. We present a new benchmark to evaluate five different image segmentation methods according to their capability to separate a perceptually salient structure from the background with a relatively small number of segments. This way, we not only find a large variety of images that satisfy the requirement of good generality, but also construct ground-truth segmentations to achieve good objectivity. We also present a special strategy to address two important issues underlying this benchmark: (1) most image-segmentation methods are not developed to directly extract a single salient structure; (2) many real images have multiple salient structures. We apply this benchmark to evaluate and compare the performance of several state-of-the-art image segmentation methods, including the normalized-cut method, the watershed method, the efficient graph-based method, the mean-shift method, and the ratio-cut method.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Existing methods for evaluating segmentation without ground truth cannot be applied to a general task with many different class labels.
“However, these methods cannot be applied to a more general task, such as an image with many different class labels to be segmented.”
From Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth (2017) · cites this paper as [19]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truth
Valindria, V. V., Lavdas, I., Bai, W., Kamnitsas, K., Aboagye, E. O., Rockall, A. G., Rueckert, D., & Glocker, B. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2017.2665165 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
O.K., S., Riera-Marín, M., Galdran, A., López, J. G., Rodríguez-Comas, J., Piella, G., & Ballester, M. A. G. (2025) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2025.102547 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ge, F., Wang, S., & Liu, T.
- Affiliations
- Virginia Tech (US)
- University of South Carolina (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Electronic Imaging
- Publisher
- SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
- Published
- 2007-07-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 1-16
- ISSN
- 1017-9909 (ISSN-L)
- 1560-229X
- OpenAlex
- W2050167119
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Electronic Imaging (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of South Carolina
- 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 › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Keywords
- image segmentation, segmentation evaluation, benchmark, ground truth segmentation, normalized cut, watershed segmentation, graph-based segmentation, mean shift segmentation, ratio cut
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