The evaluation will be based on the normalized geodesic error $g_{err}$ of the given matching from the ground-truth sub-vertex correspondence. Different indices will be computed for the two datasets in order to analyze the performance of each method under different kinds of partiality.
The following performance indices will be considered separately for each dataset:
The evaluation code will be released for reference.
For the evaluation of the correspondence quality, we refer to the Princeton benchmark protocol [KLF11] for point-wise maps. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be the full model shape in a canonical pose and $\mathcal{N}$ one of its corresponding partial version. Assume that a correspondence algorithm produces a pair of points $(x,y) \in \mathcal{N} \times \mathcal{M}$, whereas the ground-truth correspondence is $(x,y^*)$. Then, the inaccuracy of the correspondence is measured as
$\epsilon(x) = \frac{d_\mathcal{M}(y,y^*)}{ \mathrm{area}(\mathcal{M})^{1/2} }$
and has units of normalized length on $\mathcal{M}$ (ideally, zero). Here $d_{\mathcal{M}}$ is the geodesic distance on $\mathcal{M}$.