2013
DOI: 10.1007/s11042-012-1334-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On stability of signature-based similarity measures for content-based image retrieval

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This supports our assumption that color is a necessary characteristic for retrieval, and that local features if considered, cannot be considered mutually independent, which makes feature signatures a great candidate for medical image retrieval. The strengths and weaknesses of the feature signature model have been investigated in various works [35][36][37] and its applicability reaches for instance from similarity search in multimedia databases [38][39][40] to scientific databases. 41,42 4 Methods…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This supports our assumption that color is a necessary characteristic for retrieval, and that local features if considered, cannot be considered mutually independent, which makes feature signatures a great candidate for medical image retrieval. The strengths and weaknesses of the feature signature model have been investigated in various works [35][36][37] and its applicability reaches for instance from similarity search in multimedia databases [38][39][40] to scientific databases. 41,42 4 Methods…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The (dis)similarity between two Feature Signatures is often determined in a distancebased manner by means of signature-based distance functions [6], such as the Earth Mover's Distance [40], the Signature Quadratic Form Distance (SQFD), or the Signature Matching Distance (SMD) [5]. In particular the latter is used as an asymmetric variant for the purpose of linking endoscopic images with video segments [4].…”
Section: Comparison To Static Content Descriptorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For MIDD, CNN A , CNN G , HOG, HOF, and HMG we evaluate with Manhattan distance (L1 norm) and Euclidian distance (L2 norm). Since Feature Signatures have varying dimensionality they need an own distance measure (see [6]). We employ the Signature Matching Distance (SMD) for that purpose, using the L1 norm as ground distance.…”
Section: Retrieval Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As opposed to the aforementioned approaches, adaptive distance-based similarity measures [3,4] such as the Earth Mover's Distance [22], the Signature Quadratic Form Distance [5], or Signature Matching Distance [2] provide the opportunity to define semantic similarity between documents in a flexible and indexable manner, even when the documents share no common entities. However, they do require a measure of similarity or dissimilarity between individual Named Entities, which can be achieved by different strategies.…”
Section: Challenge 2: Measuring Similaritymentioning
confidence: 99%