dc.contributor.author | Kaick, O. van | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Zhang, H. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Hamarneh, G. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Cohen-Or, D. | en_US |
dc.contributor.editor | Helwig Hauser and Erik Reinhard | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-07-09T10:06:04Z | |
dc.date.available | 2015-07-09T10:06:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/egst.20101062 | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | We present a review of the correspondence problem and its solution methods, targeting the computer graphics audience. With this goal in mind, we focus on the correspondence of geometric shapes represented by point sets, contours or triangle meshes. This survey is motivated by recent developments in the field such as those requiring the correspondence of non-rigid or time-varying surfaces and a recent trend towards semantic shape analysis, of which shape correspondence is one of the central tasks. Establishing a meaningful shape correspondence is a difficult problem since it typically relies on an understanding of the structure of the shapes in question at both a local and global level, and sometimes also the shapes functionality. However, despite its inherent complexity, shape correspondence is a recurrent problem and an essential component in numerous geometry processing applications. In this report, we discuss the different forms of the correspondence problem and review the main solution methods, aided by several classification criteria which can be used by the reader to objectively compare the methods. We finalize the report by discussing open problems and future perspectives. | en_US |
dc.publisher | The Eurographics Association | en_US |
dc.title | A Survey on Shape Correspondence | en_US |
dc.description.seriesinformation | Eurographics 2010 - State of the Art Reports | en_US |
dc.description.sectionheaders | ST4 | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.2312/egst.20101062 | en_US |
dc.identifier.pages | 61-82 | en_US |