mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Are Semi-Dense Detector-Free Methods Good at Matching Local Features?

arXiv 2402.08671 ↗First posted 13 Feb 2024cs.CV cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Semi-dense detector-free approaches (SDF), such as LoFTR, are currently among the most popular image matching methods. While SDF methods are trained to establish correspondences between two images, their performances are almost exclusively evaluated using relative pose estimation metrics. Thus, the link between their ability to establish correspondences and the quality of the resulting estimated pose has thus far received little attention. This paper is a first attempt to study this link. We start with proposing a novel structured attention-based image matching architecture (SAM). It allows us to show a counter-intuitive result on two datasets (MegaDepth and HPatches): on the one hand SAM either outperforms or is on par with SDF methods in terms of pose/homography estimation metrics, but on the other hand SDF approaches are significantly better than SAM in terms of matching accuracy. We then propose to limit the computation of the matching accuracy to textured regions, and show that in this case SAM often surpasses SDF methods. Our findings highlight a strong correlation between the ability to establish accurate correspondences in textured regions and the accuracy of the resulting estimated pose/homography. Our code will be made available.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2024.

Builds on

31 of 47 references.

References · 31

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2016Feature Pyramid Networks for Object Detectioncited by 5,021
  3. 2021SegFormer: Simple and Efficient Design for Semantic Segmentation with Transformerscited by 2,923
  4. 2020Transformers are RNNs: Fast Autoregressive Transformers with Linear Attentioncited by 1,979
  5. 2021Pyramid Vision Transformer: A Versatile Backbone for Dense Prediction without Convolutionscited by 1,960
  6. 2019SuperGlue: Learning Feature Matching with Graph Neural Networkscited by 1,437
  7. 2021Perceiver: General Perception with Iterative Attentioncited by 1,089
  8. 2021LoFTR: Detector-Free Local Feature Matching with Transformerscited by 974
  9. 2018MegaDepth: Learning Single-View Depth Prediction from Internet Photoscited by 731
  10. 2021Perceiver IO: A General Architecture for Structured Inputs & Outputscited by 616
  11. 2019D2-Net: A Trainable CNN for Joint Detection and Description of Local Featurescited by 324
  12. 2016LIFT: Learned Invariant Feature Transformcited by 305
19 more
  1. 2017HPatches: A benchmark and evaluation of handcrafted and learned local descriptorscited by 261
  2. 2020Image Matching across Wide Baselines: From Paper to Practicecited by 224
  3. 2022DKM: Dense Kernelized Feature Matching for Geometry Estimationcited by 174
  4. 2018Neighbourhood Consensus Networkscited by 173
  5. 2022ASpanFormer: Detector-Free Image Matching with Adaptive Span Transformercited by 170
  6. 2018LF-Net: Learning Local Features from Imagescited by 151
  7. 2019GLU-Net: Global-Local Universal Network for Dense Flow and Correspondencescited by 139
  8. 2022QuadTree Attention for Vision Transformerscited by 129
  9. 2020Patch2Pix: Epipolar-Guided Pixel-Level Correspondencescited by 128
  10. 2022MatchFormer: Interleaving Attention in Transformers for Feature Matchingcited by 126
  11. 2021Learning Accurate Dense Correspondences and When to Trust Themcited by 113
  12. 2022Map-free Visual Relocalization: Metric Pose Relative to a Single Imagecited by 112
  13. 2022LaMAR: Benchmarking Localization and Mapping for Augmented Realitycited by 98
  14. 2020Efficient Neighbourhood Consensus Networks via Submanifold Sparse Convolutionscited by 92
  15. 2020Dual-Resolution Correspondence Networkscited by 90
  16. 2023PATS: Patch Area Transportation with Subdivision for Local Feature Matchingcited by 33
  17. 2021Neural Reprojection Error: Merging Feature Learning and Camera Pose Estimationcited by 17
  18. 20223DG-STFM: 3D Geometric Guided Student-Teacher Feature Matchingcited by 14
  19. 2018InLoc: Indoor Visual Localization with Dense Matching and View Synthesiscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.