A comparison of feature detectors and descriptors for object class matching

Antti Hietanen, Jukka Lankinen, Joni-Kristian Kämäräinen, Anders Glent Buch, Norbert Krüger

Research output: Contribution to journalConference articleResearchpeer-review


Solid protocols to benchmark local feature detectors and descriptors were introduced by Mikolajczyk et al. [1,2]. The detectors and the descriptors are popular tools in object class matching, but the wide baseline setting in the benchmarks does not correspond to class-level matching where appearance variation can be large. We extend the benchmarks to the class matching setting and evaluate state-ofthe- art detectors and descriptors with Caltech and ImageNet classes. Our experiments provide important findings with regard to object class matching: (1) the original SIFT is still the best descriptor; (2) dense sampling outperforms interest point detectors with a clear margin; (3) detectors perform moderately well, but descriptors' performance collapses; (4) using multiple, even a few, best matches instead of the single best has significant effect on the performance; (5) object pose variation degrades dense sampling performance while the best detector (Hessian-affine) is unaffected. The performance of the best detectordescriptor pair is verified in the application of unsupervised visual class alignment where state-of-the-art results are achieved. The findings help to improve the existing detectors and descriptors for which the framework provides an automatic validation tool.

Original languageEnglish
Issue numberC
Pages (from-to)3-12
Publication statusPublished - 2016
EventRobust Local Descriptors for Computer Vision - , Singapore
Duration: 1. Nov 20145. Nov 2016


ConferenceRobust Local Descriptors for Computer Vision


  • Interest point
  • Local descriptor
  • Local detector
  • SIFT
  • SURF


Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of feature detectors and descriptors for object class matching'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this