Perceptually-based Comparison of Image Similarity Metrics

The image comparison operation ??sessing how well one image matches another ??rms a critical component of many image analysis systems and models of human visual processing. Two norms used commonly for this purpose are L1 and L2, which are specific instances of the Minkowski metric. However, there is often not a principled reason for selecting one norm over the other. One way to address this problem is by examining whether one metric better captures the perceptual notion of image similarity than the other. With this goal, we examined perceptual preferences for images retrieved on the basis of the L1 versus the L2 norm. These images were either small fragments without recognizable content, or larger patterns with recognizable content created via vector quantization. In both conditions the subjects showed a consistent preference for images matched using the L1 metric. These results suggest that, in the domain of natural images of the kind we have used, the L1 metric may better capture human notions of image similarity.

Distance Metric Between 3D Models and 3D Images for Recognition and Classification

Similarity measurements between 3D objects and 2D images are useful for the tasks of object recognition and classification. We distinguish between two types of similarity metrics: metrics computed in image-space (image metrics) and metrics computed in transformation-space (transformation metrics). Existing methods typically use image and the nearest view of the object. Example for such a measure is the Euclidean distance between feature points in the image and corresponding points in the nearest view. (Computing this measure is equivalent to solving the exterior orientation calibration problem.) In this paper we introduce a different type of metrics: transformation metrics. These metrics penalize for the deformatoins applied to the object to produce the observed image. We present a transformation metric that optimally penalizes for "affine deformations" under weak-perspective. A closed-form solution, together with the nearest view according to this metric, are derived. The metric is shown to be equivalent to the Euclidean image metric, in the sense that they bound each other from both above and below. For Euclidean image metric we offier a sub-optimal closed-form solution and an iterative scheme to compute the exact solution.

Measuring Value in Product Development

“What is value in product development?” is the key question of this paper. The answer is critical to the creation of lean in product development. By knowing how much value is added by product development (PD) activities, decisions can be more rationally made about how to allocate resources, such as time and money. In order to apply the principles of Lean Thinking and remove waste from the product development system, value must be precisely defined. Unfortunately, value is a complex entity that is composed of many dimensions and has thus far eluded definition on a local level. For this reason, research has been initiated on “Measuring Value in Product Development.” This paper serves as an introduction to this research. It presents the current understanding of value in PD, the critical questions involved, and a specific research design to guide the development of a methodology for measuring value. Work in PD value currently focuses on either high-level perspectives on value, or detailed looks at the attributes that value might have locally in the PD process. Models that attempt to capture value in PD are reviewed. These methods, however, do not capture the depth necessary to allow for application. A methodology is needed to evaluate activities on a local level to determine the amount of value they add and their sensitivity with respect to performance, cost, time, and risk. Two conceptual tools are proposed. The first is a conceptual framework for value creation in PD, referred to here as the Value Creation Model. The second tool is the Value-Activity Map, which shows the relationships between specific activities and value attributes. These maps will allow a better understanding of the development of value in PD, will facilitate comparison of value development between separate projects, and will provide the information necessary to adapt process analysis tools (such as DSM) to consider value. The key questions that this research entails are: · What are the primary attributes of lifecycle value within PD? · How can one model the creation of value in a specific PD process? · Can a useful methodology be developed to quantify value in PD processes? · What are the tools necessary for application? · What PD metrics will be integrated with the necessary tools? The research milestones are: · Collection of value attributes and activities (September, 200) · Development of methodology of value-activity association (October, 2000) · Testing and refinement of the methodology (January, 2001) · Tool Development (March, 2001) · Present findings at July INCOSE conference (April, 2001) · Deliver thesis that captures a formalized methodology for defining value in PD (including LEM data sheets) (June, 2001) The research design aims for the development of two primary deliverables: a methodology to guide the incorporation of value, and a product development tool that will allow direct application.