In this paper we compare the performance of descriptors computed for local interest regions, as for example extracted by the Harris-Affine detector [32]. Many different descriptors have been proposed in the literature. However, it is unclear which descriptors are more appropriate and how their performance depends on the interest region detector. The descriptors should be distinctive and at the same time robust to changes in viewing conditions as well as to errors of the detector. Our evaluation uses as criterion recall with respect to precision and is carried out for different image transformations. We compare shape context [3], steerable filters [12], PCA-SIFT [19], differential invariants [20], spin images [21], SIFT [26], complex filters [37], moment invariants [43], and cross-correlation for different types of interest regions. We also propose an extension of the SIFT descriptor, and show that it outperforms the original method. Furthermore, we observe that the ranking of the descriptors is mostly independent of the interest region detector and that the SIFT based descriptors perform best. Moments and steerable filters show the best performance among the low dimensional descriptors.

In this paper we compare the performance of interest point descriptors. Many different descriptors have been proposed in the literature. However, it is unclear which descriptors are more appropriate and how their performance depends on the interest point detector. The descriptors should be distinctive and at the same time robust to changes in viewing conditions as well as to errors of the point detector. Our evaluation uses as criterion detection rate with respect to false positive rate and is carried out for different image transformations. We compare SIFT descriptors [11], steerable filters [5], differential invariants [10], complex filters [17], moment invariants [21] and cross-correlation for different types of interest points [8, 11, 13, 14]. In this evaluation, we observe that the ranking of the descriptors does not depend on the point detector and that SIFT descriptors perform best. Steerable filters come second ; they can be considered a good choice given the low dimensionality.

Tolerance (“invariance”) to identity-preserving image variation (e.g. variation in position, scale, pose, illumination) is a fundamental problem that any visual object recognition system, biological or engineered, must solve. While standard natural image database benchmarks are useful for guiding progress in computer vision, they can fail to probe the ability of a recognition system to solve the invariance problem [23, 24, 25]. Thus, to understand which computational approaches are making progress on solving the invariance problem, we compared and contrasted a variety of state-of-the-art visual representations using synthetic recognition tasks designed to systematically probe invariance. We successfully re-implemented a variety of state-ofthe-art visual representations and confirmed their published performance on a natural image benchmark. We here report that most of these representations perform poorly on invariant recognition, but that one representation [21] shows significant performance gains over two baseline representations. We also show how this approach can more deeply illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of different visual representations and thus guide progress on invariant object recognition. 1.