Table 5

This table shows performance and comparisons, on the Shape Princeton Benchmark. Our method is shown in bold under the name MCC (see [4, 10, 34] and Table 7).

Methods

NN (%)

FT (%)

ST (%)

DCG (%)

MCC 3

71.9

47.2

58.6

71.5

MCC 2

71.9

45.1

55.6

70.1

MCC 4

67.1

39.8

51

66.1

MCC 1

65.9

39.4

50.7

65.8

LFD

65.7

38

48.7

64.3

EDBA

65.4

38.3

49.8

64.1

AVC

62

35.5

45.5

63

ESA

57.8

32.6

44.4

60.2

REXT

60.2

32.7

43.2

60.1

DBD

59.2

32.9

41.8

58.9

SHD

55.6

30.9

41.1

58.4

GEDT

60.3

31.3

40.7

58.4

SIL

52.8

28.5

38.8

56.3

EXT

54.9

28.6

37.9

56.2

SECSHEL

54.6

26.7

35

54.5

VOXEL

54

26.7

35.5

54.3

SECTORS

50.4

24.9

33.4

52.9

CEGI

42

21.1

28.7

47.9

EGI

37.7

19.7

27.7

47.2

D2

31.1

15.8

23.5

43.4

SHELLS

22.7

11.1

17.3

38.6

Napoléon and Sahbi EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing 2010 2010:367181   doi:10.1155/2010/367181