  Most computer vision application rely on algorithms finding local
correspondences between different images. These algorithms detect and compare
stable local invariant descriptors centered at scale-invariant keypoints.
Because of the importance of the problem, new keypoint detectors and
descriptors are constantly being proposed, each one claiming to perform better
(or to be complementary) to the preceding ones. This raises the question of a
fair comparison between very diverse methods. This evaluation has been mainly
based on a repeatability criterion of the keypoints under a series of image
perturbations (blur, illumination, noise, rotations, homotheties, homographies,
etc). In this paper, we argue that the classic repeatability criterion is
biased towards algorithms producing redundant overlapped detections. To
compensate this bias, we propose a variant of the repeatability rate taking
into account the descriptors overlap. We apply this variant to revisit the
popular benchmark by Mikolajczyk et al., on classic and new feature detectors.
Experimental evidence shows that the hierarchy of these feature detectors is
severely disrupted by the amended comparator.

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition