A comparison of methods for non-rigid 3D shape retrieval

dc.contributor.authorLian, Zhouhui
dc.contributor.authorGodil, Afzal
dc.contributor.authorBustos, Benjamin
dc.contributor.authorDaoudi, Mohamed
dc.contributor.authorHermans, Jeroen
dc.contributor.authorKawamura, Shun
dc.contributor.authorKurita, Yukinori
dc.contributor.authorLavoue, Guillaume
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, Hien Van
dc.contributor.authorOhbuchi, Ryutarou
dc.contributor.authorOhkita, Yuki
dc.contributor.authorOhishi, Yuya
dc.contributor.authorPorikli, Fatih
dc.contributor.authorReuter, Martin
dc.contributor.authorSipiran, Ivan
dc.contributor.authorSmeets, Dirk
dc.contributor.authorSuetens, Paul
dc.contributor.authorTabia, Hedi
dc.contributor.authorVandermeulen, Dirk
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-08T22:33:49Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.date.updated2016-02-24T11:13:58Z
dc.description.abstractNon-rigid 3D shape retrieval has become an active and important research topic in content-based 3D object retrieval. The aim of this paper is to measure and compare the performance of state-of-the-art methods for non-rigid 3D shape retrieval. The paper develops a new benchmark consisting of 600 non-rigid 3D watertight meshes, which are equally classified into 30 categories, to carry out experiments for 11 different algorithms, whose retrieval accuracies are evaluated using six commonly utilized measures. Models and evaluation tools of the new benchmark are publicly available on our web site [1].
dc.identifier.issn0031-3203
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/34824
dc.publisherPergamon-Elsevier Ltd
dc.sourcePattern Recognition
dc.subjectKeywords: 3D object retrieval; 3D shape retrieval; Benchmark; Comparison of methods; Content-based; Evaluation tool; Non-rigid; Research topics; Retrieval accuracy; State-of-the-art methods; Pattern recognition; Software engineering; Three dimensional 3D shape retrieval; Benchmark; Non-rigid
dc.titleA comparison of methods for non-rigid 3D shape retrieval
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.issue1
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage461
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage449
local.contributor.affiliationLian, Zhouhui, Peking University
local.contributor.affiliationGodil, Afzal, National Institute of Standards and Technology
local.contributor.affiliationBustos, Benjamin, University of Chile
local.contributor.affiliationDaoudi, Mohamed, Institut TELECOM, France
local.contributor.affiliationHermans, Jeroen, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
local.contributor.affiliationKawamura, Shun, University of Yamanashi
local.contributor.affiliationKurita, Yukinori, University of Yamanashi
local.contributor.affiliationLavoue, Guillaume, Universite´ de Lyon
local.contributor.affiliationNguyen, Hien Van, University of Maryland, College Park
local.contributor.affiliationOhbuchi, Ryutarou, University of Yamanashi
local.contributor.affiliationOhkita, Yuki, University of Yamanashi
local.contributor.affiliationOhishi, Yuya, University of Yamanashi
local.contributor.affiliationPorikli, Fatih, College of Engineering and Computer Science, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationReuter, Martin, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical/MIT
local.contributor.affiliationSipiran, Ivan, University of Chile
local.contributor.affiliationSmeets, Dirk, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
local.contributor.affiliationSuetens, Paul, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
local.contributor.affiliationTabia, Hedi, University Lille 1
local.contributor.affiliationVandermeulen, Dirk, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
local.contributor.authoruidPorikli, Fatih, u5405232
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor090602 - Control Systems, Robotics and Automation
local.identifier.absseo970109 - Expanding Knowledge in Engineering
local.identifier.ariespublicationu4628727xPUB117
local.identifier.citationvolume46
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.patcog.2012.07.014
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-84866012196
local.type.statusPublished Version

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Lian_A_comparison_of_methods_for_2013.pdf
Size:
2.33 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format