Graph Sampling for Map Comparison

IF 1.2 Q4 REMOTE SENSING
J. Aguilar, K. Buchin, M. Buchin, Erfan Hosseini Sereshgi, Rodrigo I. Silveira, C. Wenk
{"title":"Graph Sampling for Map Comparison","authors":"J. Aguilar, K. Buchin, M. Buchin, Erfan Hosseini Sereshgi, Rodrigo I. Silveira, C. Wenk","doi":"10.1145/3662733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Comparing two road maps is a basic operation that arises in a variety of situations. A map comparison method that is commonly used, mainly in the context of comparing reconstructed maps to ground truth maps, is based on\n graph sampling\n . The essential idea is to first compute a set of point samples on each map, and then to match pairs of samples—one from each map—in a one-to-one fashion. For deciding whether two samples can be matched, different criteria, e.g., based on distance or orientation, can be used. The total number of matched pairs gives a measure of how similar the maps are.\n \n Since the work of Biagioni and Eriksson [11, 12], graph sampling methods have become widely used. However, there are different ways to implement each of the steps, which can lead to significant differences in the results. This means that conclusions drawn from different studies that seemingly use the same comparison method, cannot necessarily be compared.\n In this work we present a unified approach to graph sampling for map comparison. We present the method in full generality, discussing the main decisions involved in its implementation. In particular, we point out the importance of the sampling method (GEO vs. TOPO) and that of the matching definition, discussing the main options used, and proposing alternatives for both key steps. We experimentally evaluate the different sampling and matching options considered on map datasets and reconstructed maps. Furthermore, we provide a code base and an interactive visualization tool to set a standard for future evaluations in the field of map construction and map comparison.","PeriodicalId":43641,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3662733","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REMOTE SENSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Comparing two road maps is a basic operation that arises in a variety of situations. A map comparison method that is commonly used, mainly in the context of comparing reconstructed maps to ground truth maps, is based on graph sampling . The essential idea is to first compute a set of point samples on each map, and then to match pairs of samples—one from each map—in a one-to-one fashion. For deciding whether two samples can be matched, different criteria, e.g., based on distance or orientation, can be used. The total number of matched pairs gives a measure of how similar the maps are. Since the work of Biagioni and Eriksson [11, 12], graph sampling methods have become widely used. However, there are different ways to implement each of the steps, which can lead to significant differences in the results. This means that conclusions drawn from different studies that seemingly use the same comparison method, cannot necessarily be compared. In this work we present a unified approach to graph sampling for map comparison. We present the method in full generality, discussing the main decisions involved in its implementation. In particular, we point out the importance of the sampling method (GEO vs. TOPO) and that of the matching definition, discussing the main options used, and proposing alternatives for both key steps. We experimentally evaluate the different sampling and matching options considered on map datasets and reconstructed maps. Furthermore, we provide a code base and an interactive visualization tool to set a standard for future evaluations in the field of map construction and map comparison.
用于地图比较的图形取样
比较两幅路线图是在各种情况下都会出现的基本操作。一种常用的地图比较方法基于图采样,主要用于比较重建地图和地面实况地图。其基本思想是首先计算每张地图上的一组点样本,然后以一对一的方式匹配每张地图上的一对样本。在决定两个样本是否可以匹配时,可以使用不同的标准,例如基于距离或方向的标准。匹配对的总数可以衡量地图的相似程度。 自 Biagioni 和 Eriksson [11, 12] 的研究工作以来,图抽样方法得到了广泛应用。然而,每个步骤都有不同的实施方法,这可能导致结果的显著差异。这意味着,看似使用相同比较方法的不同研究得出的结论不一定能进行比较。在这项工作中,我们提出了一种用于地图比较的统一图抽样方法。我们全面介绍了该方法,并讨论了实施过程中涉及的主要决策。我们特别指出了采样方法(GEO 与 TOPO)和匹配定义的重要性,讨论了使用的主要选项,并为这两个关键步骤提出了替代方案。我们在地图数据集和重建地图上对所考虑的不同取样和匹配方案进行了实验评估。此外,我们还提供了一个代码库和一个交互式可视化工具,为今后在地图构建和地图对比领域进行评估设定了标准。
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems (TSAS) is a scholarly journal that publishes the highest quality papers on all aspects of spatial algorithms and systems and closely related disciplines. It has a multi-disciplinary perspective in that it spans a large number of areas where spatial data is manipulated or visualized (regardless of how it is specified - i.e., geometrically or textually) such as geography, geographic information systems (GIS), geospatial and spatiotemporal databases, spatial and metric indexing, location-based services, web-based spatial applications, geographic information retrieval (GIR), spatial reasoning and mining, security and privacy, as well as the related visual computing areas of computer graphics, computer vision, geometric modeling, and visualization where the spatial, geospatial, and spatiotemporal data is central.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信