The Effectiveness of Edge Detection Evaluation Metrics for Automated Coastline Detection

Conor O'Sullivan, S. Coveney, X. Monteys, Soumyabrata Dev
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Edge Detection Evaluation Metrics for Automated Coastline Detection","authors":"Conor O'Sullivan, S. Coveney, X. Monteys, Soumyabrata Dev","doi":"10.1109/PIERS59004.2023.10221292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We analyse the effectiveness of RMSE, PSNR, SSIM and FOM for evaluating edge detection algorithms used for automated coastline detection. Typically, the accuracy of detected coastlines is assessed visually. This can be impractical on a large scale leading to the need for objective evaluation metrics. Hence, we conduct an experiment to find reliable metrics. We apply Canny edge detection to 95 coastline satellite images across 49 testing locations. We vary the Hysteresis thresholds and compare metric values to a visual analysis of detected edges. We found that FOM was the most reliable metric for selecting the best threshold. It could select a better threshold 92.6% of the time and the best threshold 66.3% of the time. This is compared RMSE, PSNR and SSIM which could select the best threshold 6.3%, 6.3% and 11.6% of the time respectively. We provide a reason for these results by reformulating RMSE, PSNR and SSIM in terms of confusion matrix measures. This suggests these metrics not only fail for this experiment but are not useful for evaluating edge detection in general.","PeriodicalId":354610,"journal":{"name":"2023 Photonics & Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS)","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2023 Photonics & Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/PIERS59004.2023.10221292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We analyse the effectiveness of RMSE, PSNR, SSIM and FOM for evaluating edge detection algorithms used for automated coastline detection. Typically, the accuracy of detected coastlines is assessed visually. This can be impractical on a large scale leading to the need for objective evaluation metrics. Hence, we conduct an experiment to find reliable metrics. We apply Canny edge detection to 95 coastline satellite images across 49 testing locations. We vary the Hysteresis thresholds and compare metric values to a visual analysis of detected edges. We found that FOM was the most reliable metric for selecting the best threshold. It could select a better threshold 92.6% of the time and the best threshold 66.3% of the time. This is compared RMSE, PSNR and SSIM which could select the best threshold 6.3%, 6.3% and 11.6% of the time respectively. We provide a reason for these results by reformulating RMSE, PSNR and SSIM in terms of confusion matrix measures. This suggests these metrics not only fail for this experiment but are not useful for evaluating edge detection in general.
边缘检测评价指标在海岸线自动检测中的有效性
我们分析了RMSE、PSNR、SSIM和FOM的有效性,以评估用于自动海岸线检测的边缘检测算法。通常,海岸线探测的准确性是目测的。这在大规模上可能是不切实际的,导致需要客观的评估量度。因此,我们进行了一个实验来寻找可靠的度量。我们将Canny边缘检测应用于49个测试地点的95张海岸线卫星图像。我们改变迟滞阈值,并将度量值与检测到的边缘的视觉分析进行比较。我们发现FOM是选择最佳阈值的最可靠指标。在92.6%的情况下可以选择较优阈值,66.3%的情况下可以选择最佳阈值。将RMSE、PSNR和SSIM分别选取6.3%、6.3%和11.6%的最佳阈值进行比较。我们通过在混淆矩阵测量方面重新制定RMSE, PSNR和SSIM来提供这些结果的原因。这表明这些指标不仅在这个实验中失败,而且在一般情况下对评估边缘检测没有用处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信