1. Learning object affordances based on structural object representation Kadir F. Uyanik Asil Kaan Bozcuoglu EE 583 Pattern Recognition Jan 4, 2011

2. Content Goal Inspirations Potential Difficulties Problem Definition Proposed Method References Appendix

3. Goal

7. Inspirations Ecological Psychologist James Jerome Gibson 1904 -1979 Cognitive Psychologist Irving Biederman 1939 -

8. Inspirations: Affordances [1] [1] J. J. Gibson (1977), The Theory of Affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, Eds. Robert Shaw and John Bransford, ISBN 0-470-99014-7. [2] E. Sahin, M. Cakmak, M.R.Dogar, E. Ugur, G. Ucoluk, To Afford or Not to Afford: A New Formalization of Affordances Toward Affordance-Based Robot Control, Adaptive Behavior, 2007 pp: 447-472 “… an affordance is neither an objective property nor a subjective property; or both if you like. An affordance cuts across the dichotomy of subjective- objective and helps us to understand its inadequacy. It is equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behavior. It is both physical and psychical, yet neither. An affordance points both ways, to the environment and to the observer.”

9. Inspirations: Affordances [1] [1] J. J. Gibson (1977), The Theory of Affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, Eds. Robert Shaw and John Bransford, ISBN 0-470-99014-7. [2] E. Sahin, M. Cakmak, M.R.Dogar, E. Ugur, G. Ucoluk, To Afford or Not to Afford: A New Formalization of Affordances Toward Affordance-Based Robot Control, Adaptive Behavior, 2007 pp: 447-472 “… an affordance is neither an objective property nor a subjective property; or both if you like. An affordance cuts across the dichotomy of subjective- objective and helps us to understand its inadequacy. It is equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behavior. It is both physical and psychical, yet neither. An affordance points both ways, to the environment and to the observer.”

10. Inspirations: Affordances [1] [1] J. J. Gibson (1977), The Theory of Affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, Eds. Robert Shaw and John Bransford, ISBN 0-470-99014-7. environment agent (, ) Revised Definition: An affordance is an acquired relation between a tuple of an agent such that the application of the on the generates a certain [2]. [2] E. Sahin, M. Cakmak, M.R.Dogar, E. Ugur, G. Ucoluk, To Afford or Not to Afford: A New Formalization of Affordances Toward Affordance-Based Robot Control, Adaptive Behavior, 2007 pp: 447-472 “… an affordance is neither an objective property nor a subjective property; or both if you like. An affordance cuts across the dichotomy of subjective- objective and helps us to understand its inadequacy. It is equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behavior. It is both physical and psychical, yet neither. An affordance points both ways, to the environment and to the observer.”

11. [3] Recognition-by-components: A theory of Human Image Understanding, Psychological Review, Vol. 94 (1987), pp. 115-148 “There are small number of geometric components that constitute the primitive elements of the object recognition system (like letters to form words)” Inspirations: Human Image Understanding [3]

12. [3] Recognition-by-components: A theory of Human Image Understanding, Psychological Review, Vol. 94 (1987), pp. 115-148 “There are small number of geometric components that constitute the primitive elements of the object recognition system (like letters to form words)” Inspirations: Human Image Understanding [3]

13. Potential Difficulties [4] Structural description not enough, also need metric info [4] M. A. Arbib CS564 – Brain Theory and Artificial Intelligence, USC, Fall 2001, Lecture 7: Object Recognition

14. Potential Difficulties [4] Structural description not enough, also need metric info Difficult to extract geons from real images [4] M. A. Arbib CS564 – Brain Theory and Artificial Intelligence, USC, Fall 2001, Lecture 7: Object Recognition

15. Potential Difficulties [4] Structural description not enough, also need metric info Difficult to extract geons from real images Ambiguity in the structural description: most often we have several candidates [4] M. A. Arbib CS564 – Brain Theory and Artificial Intelligence, USC, Fall 2001, Lecture 7: Object Recognition

16. Potential Difficulties [4] Structural description not enough, also need metric info Difficult to extract geons from real images Ambiguity in the structural description: most often we have several candidates For some objects, deriving a structural representation can be difficult [4] M. A. Arbib CS564 – Brain Theory and Artificial Intelligence, USC, Fall 2001, Lecture 7: Object Recognition

17. Problem Definition HOW TO decompose objects into parts/components ? find relations between components ? find a generic graph representation of an three tuple ?

18. Object Decomposition Proposed Algorithm

29. Object Decomposition What is missing? Use/try different clustering algorithms Triangulate 3D surfaces, Delaunay Compute gaussian curvature on each vertex Detect region boundaries, curvature thresholding Perform iterative region growing, flood fill

30. Graphical Representation We represent each objects in non-directed graphs as follows: –Each node has the info of geometric shape of the part –Each edge has the information of direction of edge for three axises, i.e from node1 to node2, x axis increases.

31. Graphical Representation Similarity Checking [isIsomorphic, label_list]= check_Isomorphism(G1, G2) If isIsomorphic Check geometric shapes of same labeled nodes in two graphs Check direction of equivalent edges in both graphs If both are matched, return true Else return false

32. Isomorphism check: Two candidates: - n1 = n6, n2 = n4, n3 = n5 (Attributes matched!) - n1 = n4, n2 = n6, n3 = n5 (Attributes isn’t matched) Graphical Representation Similarity Checking

34. Current System 80% is successful Assumes no occlusion. –For the cup case, handles should always be visible Needs metric info to distinguish bigger objects from small ones

35. One way to go… Learning a generic graph for each affordance type. Checking the maximal- cliques of the match graph while comparing graph of an object and a generic graph. Mahalanobis distance metric for generic graphs and use MLE

36. Tools

37. References [1] J. J. Gibson (1977), The Theory of Affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, Eds. Robert Shaw and John Bransford, ISBN 0-470-99014-7. [2] E. Sahin, M. Cakmak, M.R.Dogar, E. Ugur, G. Ucoluk, To Afford or Not to Afford: A New Formalization of Affordances Toward Affordance-Based Robot Control, Adaptive Behavior, 2007 pp: 447-472 [3] Recognition-by-components: A theory of Human Image Understanding, Psychological Review, Vol. 94 (1987), pp. 115-148 [4] M. A. Arbib CS564 – Brain Theory and Artificial Intelligence, USC, Fall 2001, Lecture 7: Object Recognition

38. Thanks for listening

39. Appendix

40. Human Image Understanding Hypothesis: small number of geometric components that constitute the primitive elements of the object recognition system (like letters to form words) Geons are directly recognized from edges, based on their nonaccidental properties (i.e., 3D features that are usually preserved by the projective imaging process). –edges are straight or curved –pairs of edges are parallel or non-parallel –vertices will always appear to be vertices Non-accidental properties allows geons to be recognized from any perspective. The information in the geons are redundant so that they can be recognized even when partially occluded.

41. Appendix The Importance of spatial arrangement

42. Appendix The Principal of non-accidentalness Examples: Colinearity Smoothness Symmetry Parallelism Cotermination

43. Appendix Some non-accidental differences