Paper detail

TED: A Tolerant Edit Distance for Segmentation Evaluation

In this paper, we present a novel error measure to compare a segmentation against ground truth. This measure, which we call Tolerant Edit Distance (TED), is motivated by two observations: (1) Some errors, like small boundary shifts, are tolerable in practice. Which errors are tolerable is application dependent and should be a parameter of the measure. (2) Non-tolerable errors have to be corrected manually. The time needed to do so should be reflected by the error measure. Using integer linear programming, the TED finds the minimal weighted sum of split and merge errors exceeding a given tolerance criterion, and thus provides a time-to-fix estimate. In contrast to commonly used measures like Rand index or variation of information, the TED (1) does not count small, but tolerable, differences, (2) provides intuitive numbers, (3) gives a time-to-fix estimate, and (4) can localize and classify the type of errors. By supporting both isotropic and anisotropic volumes and having a flexible tolerance criterion, the TED can be adapted to different requirements. On example segmentations for 3D neuron segmentation, we demonstrate that the TED is capable of counting topological errors, while ignoring small boundary shifts.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.