Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jana Kostlivá

dblp:92/2436 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
3D vision · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computer vision › 3D vision › stereo vision › stereo matching
dense stereo matching
0.112007
Feasibility Boundary in Dense and Semi-Dense Stereo Matching · CVPR 2007
Computer vision › 3D vision › stereo vision › stereo matching
semi-dense stereo
0.112007
Feasibility Boundary in Dense and Semi-Dense Stereo Matching · CVPR 2007
Computer vision › 3D vision › stereo vision
stereo matching
0.112007
Feasibility Boundary in Dense and Semi-Dense Stereo Matching · CVPR 2007
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking
0.012007
Feasibility Boundary in Dense and Semi-Dense Stereo Matching · CVPR 2007

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

receiver operating characteristic analysis · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2007 Feasibility Boundary in Dense and Semi-Dense Stereo Matching
abstract
In stereo literature, there is no standard method for evaluating algorithms for semi-dense stereo matching. Moreover, existing evaluations for dense methods require a fixed parameter setting for the tested algorithms. In this paper, we propose a method that overcomes these drawbacks and still is able to compare algorithms based on a simple numerical value, so that reporting results does not take up much space in a paper. We propose evaluation of stereo algorithms based on Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) which captures both errors and sparsity. By comparing ROC curves of all tested algorithms we obtain the Feasibility Boundary, the best possible performance achieved by a set of tested stereo algorithms, which allows stereo algorithm users to select the proper method and parameter setting for a required application.
Jana Kostlivá, Jan Cech, Radim Sára
CVPR1