EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing Special Issue on Performance Evaluation in Image Processing Call for Papers The task of analyzing the results of an algorithm through testing is an essential qualification of algorithm design. A major limitation in the design of image processing algorithms lies in the difficulty in demonstrating that algorithms work to an acceptable measure of performance. The purpose of algorithm testing is twofold. Firstly, it provides eithera qualitative or a quantitative method of evaluating an algorithm. Secondly, it provides a comparative measure of the algorithm against similar algorithms, assuming similar criteria are used. One of the greatest caveats in designing algorithms incorporating image processing is how to conceive the criteria used to analyze the results. Do we design criteria which measure sensitivity, robustness, or accuracy? Performance evaluation in the broadest sense refers to a measure of some required behavior of an algorithm, whether it is achievable accuracy, robustness, or adaptability. It allows the intrinsic characteristics of an algorithm to be emphasized, as well as evaluation of its benefits and limitations. Selection of an appropriate evaluation methodology is dependent on the objective of the task. For example, in the context of image enhancement, requirements are essentially different for screen-based enhancement and enhancement which is embedded within a subalgorithm. Screen-based enhancement is usually assessed in a subjective manner, whereas when an algorithm is encapsulated within a larger system, subjective evaluation is not available, and the algorithm itself must determine the quality of a processed image. Very few approaches to the evaluation of image processing algorithms can be found in the literature, although the concept has been around for decades. A significant difficulty which arises in the evaluation of algorithms is finding suitable metrics which provide an objective measure of performance. A performance metric is a meaningful and computable measure used for quantitatively evaluating the performance of any algorithm. There is no single quantitative metric which correlates well with image quality as perceived by the human visual system. The process of analyzing failure is intrinsically coupled with the process of performance evaluation. In order to ascertain whether an algorithm fails or not, the characteristics of success have to be defined. Failure analysis is the process of determining why an algorithm fails during testing. The knowledge generated is then fed back to the design process in order to engender refinements in the algorithm. The goal of this special issue is to present an overview of current methodologies related to performance evaluation, performance metrics, and failure analysis of image processing algorithms. This special issue will focus on such seamless integration of visual analysis methods in, or joint design with, robust compression and transmission solutions. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): o Performance metrics for image processing, e.g. contrast enhancement and image segmentation o The use of performance indicators, e.g. robustness, accuracy, etc. o Failure assessment and postmortem analysis in algorithm testing o Performance evaluation methodologies o Intra-algorithm performance evaluation o Methods of reproducible qualitative assessment o Performance evaluation of image processing algorithms in applications such as medicine, biology, forensics, food industry, etc. o The use of ground truth data Authors should follow the EURASIP JASP manuscript format described at the journal site http://asp.hindawi.com/ Prospective authors should submit an electronic copy of their complete manuscript through the EURASIP JASP's manuscript tracking system at journal's web site, according to the following timetable. Manuscript Due March 1, 2005 Acceptance Notification July 1, 2005 Final Manuscript Due November 1, 2005 Publication Date 1st Quarter, 2006 GUEST EDITORS: Michael Wirth, Department of Computing and Information Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1; mwirth@cis.uoguelph.ca Matteo Fraschini, Medical Science Department, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy; fraschin@unica.it Martin Masek, Centre for Intelligent Information Processing Systems, School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia; masek-m@ee.uwa.edu.au Michel Bruynooghe, Laboratory of Photonics Systems, University Louis Pasteur of Strasbourg, D-76185 Karlsruhe, Germany; Michel.Bruynooghe@t-online.de Chandrasekhar, Centre for Intelligent Information Processing Systems, School of Electrical, Electronic & Computer Engineering, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia; chandra@ee.uwa.edu.au <<< Please visit http://asp.hindawi.com/ for more information about the journal. Request a free sample copy of the journal at the journal's web site. EURASIP JASP publishes as many issues as required based on the flow of high-quality manuscripts and current scheduled special issues. To submit a proposal of a special issue, please contact the journal's editor-in-chief.