A methodology for quantitative performance evaluation of detection algorithms

We present a methodology for the quantitative performance evaluation of detection algorithms in computer vision. A common method is to generate a variety of input images by varying the image parameters and evaluate the performance of the algorithm, as algorithm parameters vary. Operating curves that relate the probability of misdetection and false alarm are generated for each parameter setting. Such an analysis does not integrate the performance of the numerous operating curves. In this paper, we outline a methodology for summarizing many operating curves into a few performance curves. This methodology is adapted from the human psychophysics literature and is general to any detection algorithm. The central concept is to measure the effect of variables in terms of the equivalent effect of a critical signal variable, which in turn facilitates the determination of the breakdown point of the algorithm. We demonstrate the methodology by comparing the performance of two-line detection algorithms.

[1]  P.K Sahoo,et al.  A survey of thresholding techniques , 1988, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[2]  I.E. Abdou,et al.  Quantitative design and evaluation of enhancement/thresholding edge detectors , 1979, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[3]  C. Blakemore,et al.  Orientation Selectivity of the Human Visual System as a Function of Retinal Eccentricity and Visual Hemifield , 1981, Perception.

[4]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic curves and optimal Bayesian operating points , 1995, Proceedings., International Conference on Image Processing.

[5]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Random perturbation models and performance characterization in computer vision , 1992, Proceedings 1992 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[6]  F. Campbell,et al.  Orientational selectivity of the human visual system , 1966, The Journal of physiology.

[7]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[8]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Object Recognition Using Prediction And Probabilistic Match , 1992, Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[9]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  A quantitative methodology for analyzing the performance of detection algorithms , 1993, 1993 (4th) International Conference on Computer Vision.

[10]  Jiri Matas,et al.  Contextual Junction Finder , 1992 .

[11]  Edward J. Delp,et al.  A comparative cost function approach to edge detection , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[12]  David Malah,et al.  A study of edge detection algorithms , 1982, Comput. Graph. Image Process..

[13]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Context dependent edge detection and evaluation , 1990, Pattern Recognit..

[14]  Azriel Rosenfeld,et al.  Edge Evaluation Using Local Edge Coherence , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[15]  Edward S. Deutsch,et al.  A Quantitative Study of the Orientation Bias of Some Edge Detector Schemes , 1978, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[16]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Constrained monotone regression of ROC curves and histograms using splines and polynomials , 1995, Proceedings., International Conference on Image Processing.

[17]  Tapas Kanungo,et al.  Experimental methodology for performance characterization of a line detection algorithm , 1991, Other Conferences.

[18]  Linda G. Shapiro,et al.  Visual inspection of machined parts , 1992, CVPR 1992.

[19]  J. B. Burns,et al.  Extracting straight lines , 1987 .