The 19th Korea-Japan Joint Workshop on Frontiers of Computer Vision 2013
DOI: 10.1109/fcv.2013.6485459
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extensive analysis of feature selection for compact descriptor

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…But the number of matched local feature pairs had been increased slightly which indicated that more true positive local features had been selected at the expense of computation. This observation is consistent with the result of [20,21]. However, extra computation is required by the combination methods as four selection metrics are needed to be computed for each feature, which will cause extra system delay when the feature number is large.…”
Section: )supporting
confidence: 92%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…But the number of matched local feature pairs had been increased slightly which indicated that more true positive local features had been selected at the expense of computation. This observation is consistent with the result of [20,21]. However, extra computation is required by the combination methods as four selection metrics are needed to be computed for each feature, which will cause extra system delay when the feature number is large.…”
Section: )supporting
confidence: 92%
“…image pairwise matching accuracy) in the literature [15,20,21] while the position of the retrieved correct content in the retrieval list is not considered. However, the position of the correct content in the retrieved list is significant for MAR applications because MAR directly triggers the display of the first returned content.…”
Section: Retrieval Experimental Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Such differences are characterized during the feature detection and implied in the output of the feature detector. The output parameters including the Difference-of-Gaussian (DOG) response (denoted as peak in the following paragraphs), scale , orientation , location (the distance from the feature location to the image center) are evaluated individually to investigate the relevance score of these quantities to correctly matched pairs [12] as well as their combination [13] using the probability mass function of correctly matched features learned from dataset. Then, the features are selected on the basis of a relevance score.…”
Section: Feature Selection For Sift Featurementioning
confidence: 99%