skip to main content
10.1145/2425836.2425869acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesivcnzConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Optimality in combinations of confidence measures for stereo vision

Published:26 November 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Confidence measures for stereo vision are already popular for some time. Yet, comprehensive results on their performance evaluation are rare. There is still not yet any agreement on answering the question 'what is a good confidence measure'. Very little work has been done for improving discriminativity by exploiting information from combinations of different confidence measures. We present a method to determine an upper bound for performance increase possible by combining given confidence measures. We also provide a solution for a fusion of measures resulting in improved confidence accuracy on popular stereo benchmark data.

References

  1. J. Banks and P. I. Corke. Quantitative evaluation of matching methods and validity measures for stereo vision. I. J. Robotic Res., 20(7): 512--532, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. G. Egnal. Mutual information as a stereo correspondence measure. Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA, Tech. Rep. MS-CIS-00-20, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. K. Gehrig and T. Scharwächter. A real-time multi-cue framework for determining optical flow confidence. In ICCV Workshops, pages 1978--1985, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. R. Haeusler. Evaluation of Confidence Measures on SGM Stereo. In IVCNZ, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. R. Haeusler and R. Klette. Analysis of KITTI Data for Stereo Analysis with Stereo Confidence Measures. In ECCV Workshop on Unsolved Problems in Optical Flow and Stereo Estimation, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. H. Hirschmüller. Stereo processing by semiglobal matching and mutual information. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 30(2): 328--341, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. H. Hirschmüller and D. Scharstein. Evaluation of cost functions for stereo matching. In CVPR, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. X. Hu and P. Mordohai. A quantitative evaluation of confidence measures for stereo vision. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. Merrell, A. Akbarzadeh, L. Wang, P. Mordohai, J.-M. Frahm, R. Yang, D. Nistér, and M. Pollefeys. Real-time visibility-based fusion of depth maps. In ICCV, pages 1--8, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. S. Morales and R. Klette. A third eye for performance evaluation in stereo sequence analysis. In CAIP, pages 1078--1086, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. P. Mordohai. The self-aware matching measure for stereo. In ICCV, pages 1841--1848, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. M. Okutomi, Y. Katayama, and S. Oka. A simple stereo algorithm to recover precise object boundaries and smooth surfaces. International Journal of Computer Vision, 47(1--3): 261--273, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. Scharstein and C. Pal. Learning conditional random fields for stereo. In CVPR, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. D. Scharstein and R. Szeliski. Stereo matching with nonlinear diffusion. International Journal of Computer Vision, 28(2): 155--174, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Scharstein and R. Szeliski. A taxonomy and evaluation of dense two-frame stereo correspondence algorithms. International Journal of Computer Vision, 47(1--3): 7--42, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. Scharstein and R. Szeliski. High-accuracy stereo depth maps using structured light. In CVPR (1), pages 195--202, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Shi and C. Tomasi. Good features to track. In CVPR, IEEE, pages 593--600, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. R. Szeliski. Prediction error as a quality metric for motion and stereo. In ICCV, pages 781--788, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. Wedel, T. Brox, T. Vaudrey, C. Rabe, U. Franke, and D. Cremers. Stereoscopic scene flow computation for 3d motion understanding. International Journal of Computer Vision, 95(1): 29--51, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K.-J. Yoon and I.-S. Kweon. Adaptive support-weight approach for correspondence search. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 28(4): 650--656, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    IVCNZ '12: Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand
    November 2012
    547 pages
    ISBN:9781450314732
    DOI:10.1145/2425836

    Copyright © 2012 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 26 November 2012

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate55of74submissions,74%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader