Advertisement

A Comparison of Search Strategies for Geometric Branch and Bound Algorithms

  • Thomas M. Breuel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2352)

Abstract

Over the last decade, a number of methods for geometric matching based on a branch-and-bound approach have been proposed. Such algorithms work by recursively subdividing transformation space and bounding the quality of match over each subdivision. No direct comparison of the major implementation strategies has been made so far, so it has been unclear what the relative performance of the different approaches is. This paper examines experimentally the relative performance of different implementation choices in the implementation of branch-and-bound algorithms for geometric matching: alternatives for the computation of upper bounds across a collection of features, and alternatives the order in which search nodes are expanded. Two major approaches to computing the bounds have been proposed: the matchlist based approach, and approaches based on point location data structures. A second issue that is addressed in the paper is the question of search strategy; branch-and-bound algorithms traditionally use a “best-first” search strategy, but a “depth-first” strategy is a plausible alternative. These alternative implementations are compared on an easily reproducible and commonly used class of test problems, a statistical model of feature distributions and matching within the COIL-20 image database. The experimental results show that matchlist based approaches outperform point location based approaches on common tasks. The paper also shows that a depth-first approach to matching results in a 50-200 fold reduction in memory usage with only a small increase in running time. Since matchlist-based approaches are significantly easier to implement and can easily cope with a much wider variety of feature types and error bounds that point location based approaches, they should probably the primary implementation strategy for branch-and-bound based methods for geometric matching.

References

  1. 1.
    Henry S. Baird. Model-Based Image Matching Using Location. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. H. Ballard. Generalized hough transform to detect arbitrary patterns. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13(2): 111–122, 1981.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G Borgefors. Hierarchical chamfer matching: A parametric edge matching algorithm. PAMI, 10:849–865, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. M. Breuel. Fast Recognition using Adaptive Subdivisions of Transformation Space. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 445–451, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. M. Breuel. Higher-Order Statistics in Object Recognition. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 707–708, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. M. Breuel. Branch-and-bound algorithms for geometric matching problems. Submitted to Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. M. Breuel. Robust least square baseline finding using a branch and bound algorithm. In Document Recognition and Retrieval VIII, SPIE, San Jose, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Grimson. Object Recognition by Computer. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Hagedoorn and R. C. Veltkamp. Reliable and efficient pattern matching using an affine invariant metric. Technical Report RUU-CS-97-33, Dept. of Computing Science, Utrecht University, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.P. Huttenlocher, G.A. Klanderman, and W.J. Rucklidge. Comparing images using the haus-dorff distance. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 15(9):850–63, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. M. Mount and S. Arya. ANN: A library for approximate nearest neighbor searching. In CGC 2nd Annual Fall Workshop on Computational Geometry, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.M. Mount, N.S. Netanyahu, and J. Le Moigne. Efficient algorithms for robust feature matching. Pattern Recognition, 32(1): 17–38, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Nene, S. Nayar, and H. Murase. Columbia object image library: Coil. Technical Report CUCS-006-96, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark F. Olson. Locating geometric primitives by pruning the parameter space. Pattern Recognition, 34(6): 1247–1256, June 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas M. Breuel
    • 1
  1. 1.Xerox Palo Alto Research CenterPalo Alto

Personalised recommendations