2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.patrec.2009.10.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance measures for object detection evaluation

Abstract: a b s t r a c tWe propose a new procedure for quantitative evaluation of object detection algorithms. The procedure consists of a matching stage for finding correspondences between reference and output objects, an accuracy score that is sensitive to object shapes as well as boundary and fragmentation errors, and a ranking step for final ordering of the algorithms using multiple performance indicators. The procedure is illustrated on a building detection task where the resulting rankings are consistent with the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
21
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The reason, and the justification for the VTT, is that the current method does not scale with respect to the richness of the representation. Even for the subtasks in the competitions mentioned earlier, the evaluation of performance, i.e., comparing the output of the system (e.g., estimated bounding boxes) to the ground truth, is not always straightforward and the quality of matches must be assessed (28). Moreover, annotating every image submitted for testing at massive levels of detail is not feasible.…”
Section: Current Evaluation Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason, and the justification for the VTT, is that the current method does not scale with respect to the richness of the representation. Even for the subtasks in the competitions mentioned earlier, the evaluation of performance, i.e., comparing the output of the system (e.g., estimated bounding boxes) to the ground truth, is not always straightforward and the quality of matches must be assessed (28). Moreover, annotating every image submitted for testing at massive levels of detail is not feasible.…”
Section: Current Evaluation Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, since the Hacettepe images consisted of multiple cells, a matching step was required to find correspondences between the resulting segments and the ground truth nuclei. We used an object-based evaluation procedure similar to [35] that was adapted from the work of [36] on range image segmentation evaluation. This procedure used the individual reference objects in the ground truth and the output objects in the produced segmentation, and classified every pair of reference and output objects as correct detections, over-detections, underdetections, missed detections, or false alarms with respect to a threshold t on the amount of overlap between these objects.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Segmentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Area S yang berada pada matrix persegi Precision dan recall sering digunakan pada literatur untuk mengukur seberapa baik objek yang dideteksi terhadap objek referensi. Recall dapat diinterpretasikan sebagai jumlah objek positif benar dideteksi oleh algoritma, sedangkan precision cenderung mengevaluasi algoritma sebagai positif salah [11]. Accuracy digunakan untuk mengukur tingkat kesesuaian semua status lalu lintas yang benar dengan total status lalu lintas yang dideteksi.…”
Section: Algoritma Monte Carlounclassified