Advertisement

Local Mean Multiphase Segmentation with HMMF Models

  • Jacob Daniel Kirstejn HansenEmail author
  • François Lauze
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10302)

Abstract

This paper presents two similar multiphase segmentation methods for recovery of segments in complex weakly structured images, with local and global bias fields, because they can occur in some X-ray CT imaging modalities. Derived from the Mumford-Shah functional, the proposed methods assume a fixed number of classes. They use local image average as discriminative features. Region labels are modelled by Hidden Markov Measure Field Models. The resulting problems are solved by straightforward alternate minimisation methods, particularly simple in the case of quadratic regularisation of the labels. We demonstrate the proposed methods’ capabilities on synthetic data using classical segmentation criteria as well as criteria specific to geoscience. We also present a few examples using real data.

Keywords

Tikhonov Regularisation Bias Field Kernel Parameter Descent Step Classical Segmentation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

J. Hansen and F. Lauze acknowledge funding from the Innovation Fund Denmark and Mærsk Oil and Gas A/S, for the P\(^3\) Project. We thank Henning Osholm Sørensen for giving us access to the experimental tomography data.

References

  1. 1.
    Bertsekas, D.: Incremental proximal methods for large scale convex optimization. Math. Program. Ser. B. 129, 163–195 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brox, T., Cremers, D.: On local regions models and a statistical interpretation of the piecewise smooth Mumford-Shah functional. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 84, 184–193 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buzug, T.N.: Computed Tomography from Photon Statistics to Modern Cone Beam CT. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chambolle, A., Cremers, D., Pock, T.: A convex approach to minimal partitions. SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 5(4), 1113–1158 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan, T.F., Vese, L.A.: Active contours without edges. Trans. Image Process. 10(2), 266–277 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hansen, P.C., O’Leary, D.P.: The use of the L-curve in the regularization of discrete ill-posed problems. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 14(6), 1487–1503 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Held, M., Crowder, P.W.W.: Validation of subgradient optimization. Math. Program. 6, 62–88 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, C., Zeng, L.: An active contour model for the segmentation of images with intensity inhomogeneities and bias field estimation. PloS One 10(4), e0120399 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lauze, F., Nielsen, M.: From inpainting to active contours. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 79(1), 31–43 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marroquin, J.L., Santana, E.A., Botello, S.: Hidden Markov measure field models for image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 25(11), 1380–1387 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mumford, D., Shah, J.: Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and associated variational problems. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 42(5), 577–685 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Müter, D., Pedersen, S., Sørensen, H.O., Feidenhans’L, R., Stipp, S.L.S.: Improved segmentation of X-ray tomography data from porous rocks using a dual filtering approach. Comput. Geosci. 49, 131–139 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Müter, D., Sørensen, H.O., Jha, D., Harti, R., Dalby, K.N., Suhonen, H., Feidenhans, R., Engstrøm, F., Stipp, S.L.S.: Resolution dependence of petrophysical parameters derived from X-ray tomography of chalk. Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 4 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nielsen, M., Florack, L., Deriche, R.: Regularization, scale-space, and edge detection filters. J. Math. Imaging Vis. 7, 291–307 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pham, D.L., Prince, J.L.: Adaptive fuzzy segmentation of magnetic resonance images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 18(9), 737–752 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, X.-F., Huang, D.-S., Xu, H.: An efficient local chan-vese model for image segmentation. Pattern Recognit. 43(3), 603–618 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations