Advertisement

Holistic matching

  • Andrew D. J. Cross
  • Edwin R. Hancock
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1407)

Abstract

This paper describes a new approach to extracting affine structure from 2D point-sets. The novel feature is to unify the tasks of estimating transformation geometry and identifying point-correspondence matches. Unification is realised by constructing a mixture model over the bi-partite graph representing the correspondence match and by effecting optimisation using the EM algorithm. According to our EM framework the probabilities of structural correspondence gate contributions to the expected likelihood function used to estimate maximum likelihood affine parameters. This provides a means of rejecting structural outliers. We evaluate the technique on the matching of different affine views of 3.5in floppy discs. We provide a sensitivity study based on synthetic data.

Keywords

Delaunay Triangulation Point Correspondence Structural Match Affine Parameter Maximum Likelihood Parameter 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Y. Amit and A. Kong, “Graphical Templates for Model Registration”, IEEE PAMI, 18, pp. 225–236, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.D.J. Cross and E.R. Hancock, “Perspective Pose Recovery with a Dual Step EM Algorithm”, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 10, Edited by M. Jordan, M. Kearns and S. Solla, MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.P. Dempster, Laird N.M. and Rubin D.B., “Maximum-likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm”, J. Royal Statistical Soc. Ser. B (methodological), 39, pp 1–38, 1977.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O.D. Faugeras, E. Le Bras-Mehlman and J-D. Boissonnat, “Representing Stereo Data with the Delaunay Triangulation”, Artificial Intelligence, 44, pp. 41–87, 1990.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gold S., Rangarajan A. and Mjolsness E., “Learning with pre-knowledge: Clustering with point and graph-matching distance measures”, Neural Computation, 8, pp. 787–804, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.I. Hartley, “Projective Reconstruction and Invariants from Multiple Images”, IEEE PAMI, 16, pp. 1036–1041, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.I. Jordan and R.A. Jacobs, “Hierarchical Mixtures of Experts and the EM Algorithm”, Neural Computation, 6, pp. 181–214, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Lades, J.C. Vorbruggen, J. Buhmann, J. Lange, C. von der Maalsburg, R.P. Wurtz and W. Konen, “Distortion-invariant object-recognition in a dynamic link architecture”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 42, pp. 300–311, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.P. McReynolds and D.G. Lowe, “Rigidity Checking of 3D Point Correspondences under Perspective Projection”, IEEE PAMI, 18, pp. 1174–1185, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Moss and E.R. Hancock, “Registering Incomplete Radar Images with the EM Algorithm”, Image and Vision Computing, 15, 637–648, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Oberkampf, D.F. DeMenthon and L.S. Davis, “Iterative Pose Estimation using Coplanar Feature Points”, Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 63, pp. 495–511, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. J. Poelman and T. Kanade, “A Para-perspective Factorization Method for Shape and Motion Recovery”, IEEE PAMI, 19, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Torr, A. Zisserman and S.J. Maybank, “Robust Detection of Degenerate Configurations for the Fundamental Matrix”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1037–1042, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Tuceryan and T Chorzempa, “Relative Sensitivity of a Family of Closest Point Graphs in Computer Vision Applications”, Pattern Recognition, 25, pp. 361–373, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Utans, “Mixture Models and the EM Algorithms for Object Recognition within Compositional Hierarchies”, ICSI Berkeley Technical Report, TR-93-004, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R.C. Wilson and E.R. Hancock, “Structural Matching by Discrete Relaxation”, IEEE PAMI, 19, pp. 634–648, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew D. J. Cross
    • 1
  • Edwin R. Hancock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations