Advertisement

Object count/area graphs for the evaluation of object detection and segmentation algorithms

  • Christian Wolf
  • Jean-Michel Jolion
Original Paper

Abstract

Evaluation of object detection algorithms is a non-trivial task: a detection result is usually evaluated by comparing the bounding box of the detected object with the bounding box of the ground truth object. The commonly used precision and recall measures are computed from the overlap area of these two rectangles. However, these measures have several drawbacks: they don't give intuitive information about the proportion of the correctly detected objects and the number of false alarms, and they cannot be accumulated across multiple images without creating ambiguity in their interpretation. Furthermore, quantitative and qualitative evaluation is often mixed resulting in ambiguous measures.

In this paper we propose a new approach which tackles these problems. The performance of a detection algorithm is illustrated intuitively by performance graphs which present object level precision and recall depending on constraints on detection quality. In order to compare different detection algorithms, a representative single performance value is computed from the graphs. The influence of the test database on the detection performance is illustrated by performance/generality graphs. The evaluation method can be applied to different types of object detection algorithms. It has been tested on different text detection algorithms, among which are the participants of the ICDAR 2003 text detection competition.

Keywords

Evaluation Object detection Text detection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aloimonos, Y., Rosenfeld, A.: REPLY: A response to “ignorance, Myopia and Naiveté in computer vision systems” by R.C. Jain and T.O. Binford. CVGIP: Image Understanding 53(1), 120–124 (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antonacopoulos, A., Brough, A.: Methodology for flexible and efficient analysis of the performance of page segmentation algorithms. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pp. 451–454 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antonacopoulos, A., Gatos, B., Karatzas, D.: ICDAR 2003 Page Segmentation Competition. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pp. 688–692 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowyer, K.W., Jones, J.P.: REPLY: revolutions and experimental computer vision. CVGIP: Image Understanding 53(1), 125–126 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doermann, D., Mihalcik, D.: Tools and techniques for video performance evaluation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition, vol. 4, pp. 4167–4170 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fukunaga, K., Hayes, R.R.: Effects of sample size in classifier design. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 11(8), 873–885 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hua, X.-S., Wenyin, L., Zhang, H.-J.: An automatic performance evaluation protocol for video text detection algorithms. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 14(4), 498–507 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, T.S.: REPLY: computer vision needs more experiments and applications. CVGIP: Image Understanding 53(1), 125–126 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huijsmans, N., Sebe, N.: Extended performance graphs for cluster retrieval. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 1, pp. 26–31 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jain, R.C., Binford, T.O.: Ignorance, Myopia and Naiveté in computer vision systems. CVGIP: Image Understanding 53(1), 112–117 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landais, R., Vinet, L., Jolion, J.-M.: A goal directed methodology for groundtruthing and evaluating a commercial OCR. Pattern Recognition (submitted) (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang, J., Phillips, I.T., Haralick, R.M.: Performance evaluation of document layout analysis algorithms on the UW data set. In Document Recognition IV, Proceedings of the SPIE, pp. 149–160 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lucas, S.M., Panaretos, A., Sosa, L., Tang, A., Wong, S., Young, R.: ICDAR 2003 robust reading competitions. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, vol. 2, pp. 682–687 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lucas, S.M., Panaretos, A., Sosa, L., Tang, A., Wong, S., Young, R., Ashida, K., Nagai, H., Okamoto, M., Yamamoto, H., Miyao, H., Zhu, J., Ou, W., Wolf, C., Jolion, J.-M., Todoran, L., Worring, M., Lin, X.: ICDAR 2003 robust reading competitions: entries, results and future directions. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition - Special Issue on Camera-based Text and Document Recognition 7(2–3), 105–122 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mariano, V.Y., Min, J., Park, J.-H., Kasturi, R., Mihalcik, D., Li, H., Doermann, D., Drayer, T.: Performance evaluation of object detection algorithms. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition, vol. 3, pp. 965–969 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nagy, G.: Candide's practical principles of experimental pattern recognition. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 5(2), 199–200 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Snyder, M.A.: REPLY: a commentary on the paper by Jain and Binford. CVGIP: Image Understanding 53(1), 118–119 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor, G.W., Wolf, C.: Reinforcement learning for parameter control of text detection in images and video sequences. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information & Communication Technologies (IEEE), 2004. IEEE Section France (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Rijsbergen, C.J.: Information retrieval, 2nd edition. Butterworths, London (1979)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wagner, R.A., Fisher, M.J.: The string to string correction problem. J. Assoc. Comp. Mach. 21(1), 168–173 (1974)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wenyin, L., Dori, D.: A protocol for performance evalution of line detection algorithms. Machine Vision and Applications: Special Issue on Performance Evaluation 9(5–6), 240–250 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wolf, C.: Text Detection in Images taken from Videos Sequences for Semantic Indexing. PhD thesis, INSA de Lyon, 20, rue Albert Einstein, 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, France (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolf, C., Jolion, J.-M.: Extraction and recognition of artificial text in multimedia documents. Pattern Anal. Appl. 6(4), 309–326 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIRIS-INSA de LyonBât. Jules VerneVilleurbanne cedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire d'informatique en images et systèmes d'information INSA de LyonVilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations