Evaluation of Image Segmentation Quality by Adaptive Ground Truth Composition
Segmenting an image is an important step in many computer vision applications. However, image segmentation evaluation is far from being well-studied in contrast to the extensive studies on image segmentation algorithms. In this paper, we propose a framework to quantitatively evaluate the quality of a given segmentation with multiple ground truth segmentations. Instead of comparing directly the given segmentation to the ground truths, we assume that if a segmentation is “good”, it can be constructed by pieces of the ground truth segmentations. Then for a given segmentation, we construct adaptively a new ground truth which can be locally matched to the segmentation as much as possible and preserve the structural consistency in the ground truths. The quality of the segmentation can then be evaluated by measuring its distance to the adaptively composite ground truth. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that provides a framework to adaptively combine multiple ground truths for quantitative segmentation evaluation. Experiments are conducted on the benchmark Berkeley segmentation database, and the results show that the proposed method can faithfully reflect the perceptual qualities of segmentations.
KeywordsImage segmentation evaluation ground truths image segmentation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Zhang, H., Fritts, J., Goldman, S.: An entropy-based objective segmentation eval- uation method for image segmentation. In: SPIE Electronic Imaging Storage and Retrieval Methods and Applications for Multimedia, pp. 38–49 (2004)Google Scholar
- 4.Ren, X., Jitendra, M.: Learning a classification model for segmentation. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 10–17 (2003)Google Scholar
- 5.Christensen, H., Phillips, P.: Empirical evaluation methods in computer vision. World Scientific Publishing Company (2002)Google Scholar
- 6.Martin, D., Fowlkes, C., Tal, D., Malik, J.: A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In: International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 416–423 (2001)Google Scholar
- 7.Freixenet, J., Muñoz, X., Raba, D., Martí, J., Cufí, X.: Yet Another Survey on Image Segmentation: Region and Boundary Information Integration. In: Heyden, A., Sparr, G., Nielsen, M., Johansen, P. (eds.) ECCV 2002, Part III. LNCS, vol. 2352, pp. 408–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Martin, D.: An empirical approach to grouping and segmentation. Ph.D. dissertation U.C. Berkeley (2002)Google Scholar
- 11.Unnikrishnan, R., Hebert, M.: Measures of similarity. In: IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 394–400 (2005)Google Scholar
- 13.Viola, P., Wells, W.: Alignment by maximization of mutual information, vol. 3, pp. 16–23 (1995)Google Scholar
- 14.Wang, Z., Bovik, A.: Modern image quality assessment. Morgan and Claypool Publishing Company, New York (2006)Google Scholar
- 16.Agarwala, A., Dontcheva, M., Agrawala, M., Drucker, S., Colburn, A., Curless, B., Salesin, D., Cohen, M.: Interactive digital photomontage, vol. 23, pp. 294–302 (2004)Google Scholar
- 17.Russell, B., Efros, A., Sivic, J., Freeman, W., Zisserman, A.: Segmenting scenes by matching image composites. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1580–1588 (2009)Google Scholar
- 23.Shi, J., Malik, J.: Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 22, 888–905 (1997)Google Scholar