How well do computational features perceptually rank textures? A comparative evaluation

Inspired by studies [4, 23, 40] which compared rankings obtained by search engines and human observers, in this paper we compare texture rankings derived by 51 sets of computational features against perceptual texture rankings obtained from a free-grouping experiment with 30 human observers, using a unify evaluation framework. Experimental results show that the MRSAR [37], VZNEIGHBORHOOD [62], LBPHF [2] and LBPBASIC [3] feature sets perform better than their counterparts. However, none of those feature sets are ideal. The best average G and M measures (measures of ranking accuracy from 0 to 1) [15, 5] obtained are 0.36 and 0.25 respectively. We suggest that this poor performance may be due to the small local neighborhood used to calculate higher-order features which cannot capture the long-range interactions that humans have been shown to exploit [14, 16, 49, 56]. Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).