Abstract
Stereo correspondence research often involves the comparison of techniques to determine which are better under different circumstances. The methods of comparison employed often take the form of applying the techniques to a few stereo image pairs with the technique with the lowest error rate declared superior. However, the majority of these comparisons do not contain any discussion of statistical significance; making the declared superiority of a technique statistically unreliable. In this paper we present a new evaluation method called cluster ranking that yields a statistically significant comparison of the stereo techniques being compared. Cluster ranking leverages statistical inference techniques to first rank the performance of stereo techniques on a single stereo image pair and then combine the rankings from multiple stereo pairs into an over-all ranking; in both of these rankings, only stereo techniques that are statistically different are given different ranks. We demonstrate our framework with a comparison of constructable match cost measures (those that can be assembled from a base set of components) on a data set consisting of 30 synthetic stereo pairs, with varying amounts of noise, and 18 scenes from the 2005 and 2006 Middlebury data sets. Our analysis reveals match cost measures, and measure components, that are statistically superior to all other measures depending on amount of noise, illumination, or exposure time.