Recognizing Deformable Shapes Salvador Ruiz Correa Ph.D. Thesis, Electrical Engineering.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints
Advertisements

Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints David Lowe.
Road-Sign Detection and Recognition Based on Support Vector Machines Saturnino, Sergio et al. Yunjia Man ECG 782 Dr. Brendan.
Image classification Given the bag-of-features representations of images from different classes, how do we learn a model for distinguishing them?
Object recognition and scene “understanding”
RGB-D object recognition and localization with clutter and occlusions Federico Tombari, Samuele Salti, Luigi Di Stefano Computer Vision Lab – University.
Classification and Feature Selection for Craniosynostosis Shulin Yang, Linda G. Shapiro, Michael L. Cunningham, Matthew Speltz, Su-In Lee University of.
The SIFT (Scale Invariant Feature Transform) Detector and Descriptor
Fitting: The Hough transform. Voting schemes Let each feature vote for all the models that are compatible with it Hopefully the noise features will not.
Proposed concepts illustrated well on sets of face images extracted from video: Face texture and surface are smooth, constraining them to a manifold Recognition.
Extended Gaussian Images
TP14 - Local features: detection and description Computer Vision, FCUP, 2014 Miguel Coimbra Slides by Prof. Kristen Grauman.
The Pyramid Match Kernel: Discriminative Classification with Sets of Image Features Kristen Grauman Trevor Darrell MIT.
Computer Vision for Human-Computer InteractionResearch Group, Universität Karlsruhe (TH) cv:hci Dr. Edgar Seemann 1 Computer Vision: Histograms of Oriented.
Computer Vision Detecting the existence, pose and position of known objects within an image Michael Horne, Philip Sterne (Supervisor)
Proportion Priors for Image Sequence Segmentation Claudia Nieuwenhuis, etc. ICCV 2013 Oral.
Xianfeng Gu, Yaling Wang, Tony Chan, Paul Thompson, Shing-Tung Yau
Computing 3D Geometry Directly From Range Images Sarah F. Frisken and Ronald N. Perry Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories.
Fitting: The Hough transform
Exchanging Faces in Images SIGGRAPH ’04 Blanz V., Scherbaum K., Vetter T., Seidel HP. Speaker: Alvin Date: 21 July 2004.
1 Image Recognition - I. Global appearance patterns Slides by K. Grauman, B. Leibe.
Generic Object Recognition -- by Yatharth Saraf A Project on.
A Study of Approaches for Object Recognition
UPM, Faculty of Computer Science & IT, A robust automated attendance system using face recognition techniques PhD proposal; May 2009 Gawed Nagi.
3-D Object Recognition From Shape Salvador Ruiz Correa Department of Electrical Engineering.
Technology Project: Shape-Based Retrieval of 3D Craniofacial Data PI: Linda Shapiro, Ph.D. Key Personnel: James Brinkley, M.D., Ph.D. Michael Cunningham,
Automatic Image Alignment (feature-based) : Computational Photography Alexei Efros, CMU, Fall 2005 with a lot of slides stolen from Steve Seitz and.
Distinctive Image Feature from Scale-Invariant KeyPoints
Object Recognition Using Distinctive Image Feature From Scale-Invariant Key point D. Lowe, IJCV 2004 Presenting – Anat Kaspi.
1 High-Level Computer Vision Detection of classes of objects (faces, motorbikes, trees, cheetahs) in images Detection of classes of objects (faces, motorbikes,
1 Invariant Local Feature for Object Recognition Presented by Wyman 2/05/2006.
Automatic Image Alignment (feature-based) : Computational Photography Alexei Efros, CMU, Fall 2006 with a lot of slides stolen from Steve Seitz and.
Spatial Pyramid Pooling in Deep Convolutional
3D Scene Models Object recognition and scene understanding Krista Ehinger.
Machine learning & category recognition Cordelia Schmid Jakob Verbeek.
3D Models and Matching representations for 3D object models
AdvisorStudent Dr. Jia Li Shaojun Liu Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Oakland University 3D Shape Classification Using Conformal Mapping In.
Computer vision.
Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology Intelligent Design and Graphics Laboratory Multi-scale tensor voting for feature extraction from unstructured.
Prakash Chockalingam Clemson University Non-Rigid Multi-Modal Object Tracking Using Gaussian Mixture Models Committee Members Dr Stan Birchfield (chair)
Building local part models for category-level recognition C. Schmid, INRIA Grenoble Joint work with G. Dorko, S. Lazebnik, J. Ponce.
Classifying Images with Visual/Textual Cues By Steven Kappes and Yan Cao.
Recognizing Deformable Shapes Salvador Ruiz Correa UW Ph.D. Graduate Researcher at Children’s Hospital.
Object Recognition in Images Slides originally created by Bernd Heisele.
Recognizing Deformable Shapes Salvador Ruiz Correa (CSE/EE576 Computer Vision I)
Roee Litman, Alexander Bronstein, Michael Bronstein
EE459 Neural Networks Examples of using Neural Networks Kasin Prakobwaitayakit Department of Electrical Engineering Chiangmai University.
Recognizing Deformable Shapes Salvador Ruiz Correa (CSE/EE576 Computer Vision I)
A Tutorial on using SIFT Presented by Jimmy Huff (Slightly modified by Josiah Yoder for Winter )
Methods for 3D Shape Matching and Retrieval
Local features and image matching October 1 st 2015 Devi Parikh Virginia Tech Disclaimer: Many slides have been borrowed from Kristen Grauman, who may.
Poselets: Body Part Detectors Trained Using 3D Human Pose Annotations ZUO ZHEN 27 SEP 2011.
Local features: detection and description
A Shape-based Image Retrieval System for Assisting Intervention Planning Jill Lin Biomedical and Health Informatics.
Object Recognition by Discriminative Combinations of Line Segments and Ellipses Alex Chia ^˚ Susanto Rahardja ^ Deepu Rajan ˚ Maylor Leung ˚ ^ Institute.
Image features and properties. Image content representation The simplest representation of an image pattern is to list image pixels, one after the other.
CSCI 631 – Foundations of Computer Vision March 15, 2016 Ashwini Imran Image Stitching.
Object detection with deformable part-based models
Lecture 07 13/12/2011 Shai Avidan הבהרה: החומר המחייב הוא החומר הנלמד בכיתה ולא זה המופיע / לא מופיע במצגת.
TP12 - Local features: detection and description
Recognizing Deformable Shapes
Recognition: Face Recognition
Paper Presentation: Shape and Matching
3D Models and Matching particular matching techniques
Local Feature Extraction Using Scale-Space Decomposition
Brief Review of Recognition + Context
SIFT keypoint detection
Scale-Space Representation for Matching of 3D Models
Recognizing Deformable Shapes
Presented by Xu Miao April 20, 2005
Presentation transcript:

Recognizing Deformable Shapes Salvador Ruiz Correa Ph.D. Thesis, Electrical Engineering

Basic Idea Generalize existing numeric surface representations for matching 3-D objects to the problem of identifying shape classes allowing for shape deformations. Generalize existing numeric surface representations for matching 3-D objects to the problem of identifying shape classes allowing for shape deformations.

What Kind Of Deformations? Toy animals 3-D Faces Normal Mandibles Neurocranium Normal Abnormal Shape classes: significant amount of intra-class variability

Deformed Infants’ Skulls Sagittal Coronal Normal Sagittal Synostosis Bicoronal Synostosis Fused Sutures Metopic Occurs when sutures of the cranium fuse prematurely (synostosis).

Alignment-Verification Limitations The approach does not extend well to the problem of identifying classes of similar shapes. In general: of identifying classes of similar shapes. In general: Numeric shape representations are not robust to deformations. Numeric shape representations are not robust to deformations. There are not exact correspondences between model and scene. There are not exact correspondences between model and scene. Objects in a shape class do not align. Objects in a shape class do not align.

Assumptions All shapes are represented as oriented surface meshes of fixed resolution. All shapes are represented as oriented surface meshes of fixed resolution. The vertices of the meshes in the training set are in full correspondence. The vertices of the meshes in the training set are in full correspondence. Finding full correspondences : hard problem yes … but it is approachable ( use morphable models technique: Blantz and Vetter, SIGGRAPH 99; C. R. Shelton, IJCV, 2000; Allen et al., SIGGRAPH 2003). Finding full correspondences : hard problem yes … but it is approachable ( use morphable models technique: Blantz and Vetter, SIGGRAPH 99; C. R. Shelton, IJCV, 2000; Allen et al., SIGGRAPH 2003).

Four Key Elements To Our Approach Architecture of Classifiers Numeric Signatures Components Symbolic Signatures Recognition And Classification Of Deformable Shapes

The Spin Image Signature P X n   P is the selected vertex. X is a contributing point of the mesh.  is the perpendicular distance from X to P’s surface normal.  is the signed perpendicular distance from X to P’s tangent plane. tangent plane at P

Numeric Signatures: Spin Images Rich set of surface shape descriptors. Rich set of surface shape descriptors. Their spatial scale can be modified to include local and non-local surface features. Their spatial scale can be modified to include local and non-local surface features. Representation is robust to scene clutter and occlusions. Representation is robust to scene clutter and occlusions. P Spin images for point P 3-D faces

Shape Class Components: Clusters of 3D Points with Similar Spin Images …… ComponentDetector ComputeNumericSignatures Training Set SelectSeedPoints RegionGrowingAlgorithm Grown components around seeds

Labeled Surface Mesh Selected 8 seed points by hand Component Extraction Example RegionGrowing Grow one region at the time (get one detector per component) Detected components on a training sample

How To Combine Component Information? … Extracted components on test samples Note: Numeric signatures are invariant to mirror symmetry; our approach preserves such an invariance.

Symbolic Signature Symbolic Signature at P Labeled Surface Mesh Matrix storing component labels EncodeGeometricConfiguration Critical Point P

Symbolic Signatures Are Robust To Deformations P Relative position of components is stable across deformations: experimental evidence

Proposed Architecture (Classification Example) Input LabeledMesh ClassLabel(Abnormal) Verify spatial configuration of the components IdentifySymbolicSignatures IdentifyComponents Two classification stages SurfaceMesh

Architecture Implementation ALL our classifiers are (off-the-shelf) ν - Support Vector Machines ( ν - SVMs) (Schölkopf et al., 2000 and 2001). ALL our classifiers are (off-the-shelf) ν - Support Vector Machines ( ν - SVMs) (Schölkopf et al., 2000 and 2001). Component (and symbolic signature) detectors are one-class classifiers. Component (and symbolic signature) detectors are one-class classifiers. Component label assignment: performed with a multi-way classifier that uses pairwise classification scheme. Component label assignment: performed with a multi-way classifier that uses pairwise classification scheme. Gaussian kernel. Gaussian kernel.

Experimental Validation Recognition Tasks: 4 (T1 - T4) Classification Tasks: 3 (T5 – T7) No. Experiments: 5470 Setup RecognitionClassification Laser Rotary Table

Shape Classes

Enlarging Training Sets Using Virtual Samples Displacement Vectors Originals Morphs Twist (5deg) + Taper - Push + Spherify (10%) Push +Twist (10 deg) +Scale (1.2) Original Global Morphing Operators Morphs Physical Modeling (14) University of WashingtonElectrical Engineering

Task 1: Recognizing Single Objects (1) No. Shape classes: 9. No. Shape classes: 9. Training set size: 400 meshes. Training set size: 400 meshes. Testing set size: 200 meshes. Testing set size: 200 meshes. No. Experiments: No. Experiments: No. Component detectors:3. No. Component detectors:3. No. Symbolic signature detectors: 1. No. Symbolic signature detectors: 1. Numeric signature size: 40x40. Numeric signature size: 40x40. Symbolic signature size: 20x20. Symbolic signature size: 20x20. No clutter and occlusion. No clutter and occlusion.

Task 1: Recognizing Single Objects (2) Snowman: 93%. Snowman: 93%. Rabbit: 92%. Rabbit: 92%. Dog: 89%. Dog: 89%. Cat: 85.5%. Cat: 85.5%. Cow: 92%. Cow: 92%. Bear: 94%. Bear: 94%. Horse: 92.7%. Horse: 92.7%. Human head: 97.7%. Human face: 76%. Recognition rates (true positives) (No clutter, no occlusion, complete models)

Tasks 2-3: Recognition In Complex Scenes (1) No. Shape classes: 3. No. Shape classes: 3. Training set size: 400 meshes. Training set size: 400 meshes. Testing set size: 200 meshes. Testing set size: 200 meshes. No. Experiments: No. Experiments: No. Component detectors:3. No. Component detectors:3. No. Symbolic signature detectors: 1. No. Symbolic signature detectors: 1. Numeric signature size: 40x40. Numeric signature size: 40x40. Symbolic signature size: 20x20. Symbolic signature size: 20x20. T2 – low clutter and occlusion. T2 – low clutter and occlusion.

Task 2-3: Recognition in Complex Scenes (2) ShapeClassTruePositivesFalsePositivesTruePositivesFalsePositives Snowmen91%31%87.5%28% Rabbit90.2%27.6%84.3%24% Dog89.6%34.6%88.12%22.1% Task 2 Task 3

Task 2-3: Recognition in Complex Scenes (3)

Main Contributions (1) A novel symbolic signature representation of deformable shapes that is robust to intra-class variability and missing information, as opposed to a numeric representation which is often tied to a specific shape. A novel symbolic signature representation of deformable shapes that is robust to intra-class variability and missing information, as opposed to a numeric representation which is often tied to a specific shape. A novel kernel function for quantifying symbolic signature similarities. A novel kernel function for quantifying symbolic signature similarities.

Main Contributions (2) A region growing algorithm for learning shape class components. A region growing algorithm for learning shape class components. A novel architecture of classifiers for abstracting the geometry of a shape class. A novel architecture of classifiers for abstracting the geometry of a shape class. A validation of our methodology in a set of large scale recognition and classification experiments aimed at applications in scene analysis and medical diagnosis. A validation of our methodology in a set of large scale recognition and classification experiments aimed at applications in scene analysis and medical diagnosis.