X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/canny.git/blobdiff_plain/bf273ca48657e1dd9e23cb0e5afe4b41838e3f2a..56c2b1be255aa25e9a09a24734f332daf0176789:/complexity.tex?ds=inline

diff --git a/complexity.tex b/complexity.tex
index e4e6b0e..4499857 100644
--- a/complexity.tex
+++ b/complexity.tex
@@ -58,8 +58,10 @@ Computing gradients is in $O(4Tn)$ since derivatives of each direction (vertical
 are in $O(2Tn)$.
 Finally, thresholding with hysteresis is in $O(n^2)$.
 The overall complexity is thus in $O((5^3+4T+1)n^2)$.
-To summarize, for the embedding map construction, the complexity of Hugo is
-dramatically larger than our scheme.
+
+
+
+
 
 We are then left to express the complexity of the STC algorithm.
 According to~\cite{DBLP:journals/tifs/FillerJF11}, it  is 
@@ -67,12 +69,17 @@ in $O(2^h.n)$ where $h$ is the size of the duplicated
 matrix. Its complexity is thus negligible compared with the embedding map
 construction.
 
+To summarize, for the embedding map construction, the complexity of Hugo, WOW 
+and UNIWARD are dramatically larger than the one of our scheme: 
+STABYLO is in $O(n^2)$ 
+whereas HUGO is in $O(n^2\ln(n)$, and WOW and UNIWARD are in $O(n^4\ln(n))$.
+Thanks to these complexity results, we claim that STABYLO is lightweight. 
+
 
 
 
 
 
-Thanks to these complexity results, we claim that STABYLO is lightweight. 
 
 
 
