The search of a model for representing and evaluating the similarities between shapes in a perceptually coherent way is still an open issue. One reason for this is that our perception of similarities is strongly influenced by the underlying category structure. In this paper we aim at jointly learning the categories from examples and the similarity measures related to them. There is a chicken and egg dilemma here: class knowledge is required to determine perceived similarities, while the similarities are needed to extract class knowledge in an unsupervised way. The problem is addressed through a game theoretic approach which allows us to compute 2D shape categories based on a skeletal representation. The approach provides us with both the cluster information needed to extract the categories, and the relevance information needed to compute the category model and, thus, the similarities. Experiments on a database of 1000 shapes showed that the approach outperform other clustering approaches that do not make use of the underlying contextual information and provides similarities comparable with a state-of-the-art label-propagation approach which, however, cannot extract categories.


Mixed Strategy Normalize Mutual Information Contextual Similarity Rand Index Shape Retrieval 
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.


  1. 1.
    Aslan, C., Erdem, A., Erdem, E., Tari, S.: Disconnected skeleton: Shape at its absolute scale. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 30(12), 2188–2203 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aslan, C., Tari, S.: An axis-based representation for recognition. In: ICCV, vol. 2, pp. 1339–1346 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baseski, E., Erdem, A., Tari, S.: Dissimilarity between two skeletal trees in a context. Pattern Recognition 42(3), 370–385 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cootes, T.F., Taylor, C.J., Cooper, D.H.: Active shape models - their training and application. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 61(1), 38–59 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobs, D.W., Weinshall, D., Gdalyahu, Y.: Classification with nonmetric distances: Image retrieval and class representation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 22(6), 583–600 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jain, A.K., Dubes, R.C.: Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kimia, B.B., Tannenbaum, A.R., Zucker, S.W.: Shapes, shocks and deformations i: The components of two-dimensional shape and the reaction-diffusion space. Int. J. Comput. Vision 15(3), 189–224 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klassen, E., Srivastava, A., Mio, W., Joshi, S.H.: Analysis of planar shapes using geodesic paths on shape spaces. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 26(3), 372–383 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, Y.J., Grauman, K.: Foreground focus: Unsupervised learning from partially matching images. International Journal of Computer Vision (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ling, H., Jacobs, D.: Shape classification using the inner-distance. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 29(2), 286–299 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mumford, D.: Mathematical theories of shape: Do they model perception? In: Vemuri, B.C. (ed.) Geometric Methods in Computer Vision. SPIE, vol. 1570, pp. 2–10 (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rubner, Y., Tomasi, C., Guibas, L.J.: The earth mover’s distance as a metric for image retrieval. International Journal of Computer Vision 40(2), 99–121 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shi, J., Malik, J.: Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 22(8), 888–905 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siddiqi, K., Kimia, B.B.: A shock grammar for recognition. In: IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Torsello, A., Robles-Kelly, A., Hancock, E.R.: Discovering shape classes using tree edit-distance and pairwise clustering. International Journal of Computer Vision 72(3), 259–285 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torsello, A., Bulo, S.R., Pelillo, M.: Grouping with asymmetric affinities: A game-theoretic perspective. In: CVPR, pp. 292–299 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tversky, A.: Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84, 327–352 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weibull, J.W.: Evolutionary Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang, X., Bai, X., Latecki, L.J., Tu, Z.: Improving shape retrieval by learning graph transduction. In: Forsyth, D., Torr, P., Zisserman, A. (eds.) ECCV 2008, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 5305, pp. 788–801. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhu, S.C., Yuille, A.L.: Forms: A flexible object recognition and modeling system. Int. J. Comput. Vision 20(3), 187–212 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aykut Erdem
    • 1
  • Andrea Torsello
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversitá “Ca’ Foscari” di Venezia 

Personalised recommendations