Toward the Repeatability and Robustness of the Local Reference Frame for 3D Shape Matching : An Evaluation
The local reference frame (LRF), as an independent coordinate system constructed on the local 3D surface, is broadly employed in 3D local feature descriptors. The benefits of the LRF include rotational invariance and full 3D spatial information, thereby greatly boosting the distinctiveness of a 3D f...
| Veröffentlicht in: | IEEE transactions on image processing : a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society. - 1992. - 27(2018), 8 vom: 25. Aug., Seite 3766-3781 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Weitere Verfasser: | , |
| Format: | Online-Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2018
|
| Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk: | IEEE transactions on image processing : a publication of the IEEE Signal Processing Society |
| Schlagworte: | Journal Article |
| Zusammenfassung: | The local reference frame (LRF), as an independent coordinate system constructed on the local 3D surface, is broadly employed in 3D local feature descriptors. The benefits of the LRF include rotational invariance and full 3D spatial information, thereby greatly boosting the distinctiveness of a 3D feature descriptor. There are numerous LRF methods in the literature; however, no comprehensive study comparing their repeatability and robustness performance under different application scenarios and nuisances has been conducted. This paper evaluates eight state-of-the-art LRF proposals on six benchmarks with different data modalities (e.g., LiDAR, Kinect, and Space Time) and application contexts (e.g., shape retrieval, 3D registration, and 3D object recognition). In addition, the robustness of each LRF to a variety of nuisances, including varying support radii, Gaussian noise, outliers (shot noise), mesh resolution variation, distance to boundary, keypoint localization error, clutter, occlusion, and partial overlap, is assessed. The experimental study also measures the performance under different keypoint detectors, descriptor matching performance when using different LRFs and feature representation combinations, as well as computational efficiency. Considering the evaluation outcomes, we summarize the traits, advantages, and current limitations of the tested LRF methods |
|---|---|
| Beschreibung: | Date Completed 30.07.2018 Date Revised 30.07.2018 published: Print Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
| ISSN: | 1941-0042 |
| DOI: | 10.1109/TIP.2018.2827330 |