mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Effect of Parameter Optimization on Classical and Learning-based Image Matching Methods

arXiv 2108.08179 ↗First posted 18 Aug 2021cs.CVcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Deep learning-based image matching methods are improved significantly during the recent years. Although these methods are reported to outperform the classical techniques, the performance of the classical methods is not examined in detail. In this study, we compare classical and learning-based methods by employing mutual nearest neighbor search with ratio test and optimizing the ratio test threshold to achieve the best performance on two different performance metrics. After a fair comparison, the experimental results on HPatches dataset reveal that the performance gap between classical and learning-based methods is not that significant. Throughout the experiments, we demonstrated that SuperGlue is the state-of-the-art technique for the image matching problem on HPatches dataset. However, if a single parameter, namely ratio test threshold, is carefully optimized, a well-known traditional method SIFT performs quite close to SuperGlue and even outperforms in terms of mean matching accuracy (MMA) under 1 and 2 pixel thresholds. Moreover, a recent approach, DFM, which only uses pre-trained VGG features as descriptors and ratio test, is shown to outperform most of the well-trained learning-based methods. Therefore, we conclude that the parameters of any classical method should be analyzed carefully before comparing against a learning-based technique.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2021.

Builds on

19 of 36 references.

References · 19

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  3. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  4. 2017ScanNet: Richly-annotated 3D Reconstructions of Indoor Scenescited by 3,088
  5. 2013Sinkhorn Distances: Lightspeed Computation of Optimal Transportation Distancescited by 2,277
  6. 2019SuperGlue: Learning Feature Matching with Graph Neural Networkscited by 1,437
  7. 2017SuperPoint: Self-Supervised Interest Point Detection and Descriptioncited by 1,313
  8. 2021LoFTR: Detector-Free Local Feature Matching with Transformerscited by 974
  9. 2018MegaDepth: Learning Single-View Depth Prediction from Internet Photoscited by 731
  10. 2019D2-Net: A Trainable CNN for Joint Detection and Description of Local Featurescited by 324
  11. 2017HPatches: A benchmark and evaluation of handcrafted and learned local descriptorscited by 261
  12. 2020Image Matching across Wide Baselines: From Paper to Practicecited by 224
7 more
  1. 2018Revisiting Oxford and Paris: Large-Scale Image Retrieval Benchmarkingcited by 189
  2. 2019MAGSAC++, a fast, reliable and accurate robust estimatorcited by 160
  3. 2020Patch2Pix: Epipolar-Guided Pixel-Level Correspondencescited by 128
  4. 2017Toward Geometric Deep SLAMcited by 38
  5. 2020Multi-View Optimization of Local Feature Geometrycited by 24
  6. 2021RoRD: Rotation-Robust Descriptors and Orthographic Views for Local Feature Matchingcited by 19
  7. 2021DFM: A Performance Baseline for Deep Feature Matchingcited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

5 papers.