- By
**trygg** - Follow User

- 63 Views
- Uploaded on

Download Presentation
## PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Combinatorial Optimization and Computer Vision' - trygg

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Story

- How an attempt to solve one problem lead into many different areas of computer vision and some interesting results.

Aim

Object

Category

Model

- Given an image, to segment the object

Segmentation

Cow Image

Segmented Cow

- Segmentation should (ideally) be
- shaped like the object e.g. cow-like
- obtained efficiently in an unsupervised manner
- able to handle self-occlusion

Motivation

- Current methods require user intervention
- Object and background seed pixels (Boykov and Jolly, ICCV 01)
- Bounding Box of object (Rother et al. SIGGRAPH 04)

Object Seed Pixels

Cow Image

Motivation

- Current methods require user intervention
- Object and background seed pixels (Boykov and Jolly, ICCV 01)
- Bounding Box of object (Rother et al. SIGGRAPH 04)

Object Seed Pixels

Background Seed Pixels

Cow Image

Motivation

- Current methods require user intervention
- Object and background seed pixels (Boykov and Jolly, ICCV 01)
- Bounding Box of object (Rother et al. SIGGRAPH 04)

Segmented Image

Motivation

- Current methods require user intervention
- Object and background seed pixels (Boykov and Jolly, ICCV 01)
- Bounding Box of object (Rother et al. SIGGRAPH 04)

Object Seed Pixels

Background Seed Pixels

Cow Image

Motivation

- Current methods require user intervention
- Object and background seed pixels (Boykov and Jolly, ICCV 01)
- Bounding Box of object (Rother et al. SIGGRAPH 04)

Segmented Image

Motivation

- Problem
- Manually intensive
- Segmentation is not guaranteed to be ‘object-like’

Non Object-like Segmentation

MRF for Image Segmentation

Boykov and Jolly [ICCV 2001]

EnergyMRF

=

Unary likelihood

Contrast Term

Pair-wise terms

(Potts Model)

Maximum-a-posteriori (MAP) solution x*= arg min E(x)

x

Data (D)

Unary likelihood

Pair-wise Terms

MAP Solution

GraphCut for Inference

Source

Foreground

Cut

Image

Background

Sink

Cut:A collection of edges which separates the Source from the Sink

MinCut:The cut with minimum weight (sum of edge weights)

Solution:Global optimum (MinCut) in polynomial time

Energy Minimization using Graph cuts

Graph Construction for Boolean Random Variables

EMRF(a1,a2)

Source (0)

a1

a2

Sink (1)

Energy Minimization using Graph cuts

EMRF(a1,a2) = 2a1 + 5ā1+ 9a2 + 4ā2 +2a1ā2

Source (0)

2

9

a1

a2

2

5

4

n-edges

(pair-wise term)

Sink (1)

Energy Minimization using Graph cuts

EMRF(a1,a2) = 2a1 + 5ā1+ 9a2 + 4ā2 + 2a1ā2 +ā1a2

Source (0)

2

9

1

a1

a2

2

5

4

Sink (1)

Energy Minimization using Graph cuts

EMRF(a1,a2) = 2a1 + 5ā1+ 9a2 + 4ā2 + 2a1ā2 +ā1a2

Source (0)

2

9

1

a1

a2

2

5

4

Sink (1)

Energy Minimization using Graph cuts

EMRF(a1,a2) = 2a1 + 5ā1+ 9a2 + 4ā2 + 2a1ā2 +ā1a2

Source (0)

2

9

Cost of st-cut = 11

1

a1

a2

a1 = 1 a2 = 1

2

5

4

EMRF(1,1) = 11

Sink (1)

Energy Minimization using Graph cuts

EMRF(a1,a2) = 2a1 + 5ā1+ 9a2 + 4ā2 + 2a1ā2 +ā1a2

Source (0)

2

9

Cost of st-cut = 8

1

a1

a2

a1 = 1 a2 = 0

2

5

4

EMRF(1,0) = 8

Sink (1)

Computing the st-mincut from Max-flow algorithms

Source (0)

- The Max-flow Problem
- Edge capacity and flow balance constraints

2

9

- Notation
- Residual capacity
- (edge capacity – current flow)

1

a1

a2

2

5

4

- Simple Augmenting Path based Algorithms
- Repeatedly find augmenting paths and push flow.
- Saturated edges constitute the st-mincut.
- [Ford-Fulkerson Theorem]

Sink (1)

Minimum s-t cuts algorithms

- Augmenting paths [Ford & Fulkerson, 1962]
- Push-relabel [Goldberg-Tarjan, 1986]

“sink”

T

S

A graph with two terminals

“Augmenting Paths”- Find a path from S to T along non-saturated edges

- Increase flow along this path until some edge saturates

“sink”

T

S

A graph with two terminals

“Augmenting Paths”- Find a path from S to T along non-saturated edges

- Increase flow along this path until some edge saturates

- Find next path…

- Increase flow…

“sink”

T

S

A graph with two terminals

MIN CUT

“Augmenting Paths”- Find a path from S to T along non-saturated edges

- Increase flow along this path until some edge saturates

Iterate until … all paths from S to T have at least one saturated edge

MAX FLOW

MRF, Graphical Model

- Probability for a labellingconsists of
- Likelihood Unary potential based on colour of pixel
- Prior which favours same labels for neighbours (pairwise potentials)

mx

m(labels)

Prior Ψxy(mx,my)

my

Unary Potential Φx(D|mx)

x

y

D(pixels)

Image Plane

Example

Cow Image

Object Seed

Pixels

Background Seed

Pixels

Φx(D|obj)

x

…

x

…

Φx(D|bkg)

Ψxy(mx,my)

y

…

y

…

…

…

…

…

Prior

Likelihood Ratio (Colour)

Contrast-Dependent MRF

- Probability of labelling in addition has
- Contrast term which favours boundaries to lie on image edges

mx

m(labels)

my

x

Contrast Term

Φ(D|mx,my)

y

D(pixels)

Image Plane

Example

Cow Image

Object Seed

Pixels

Background Seed

Pixels

Φx(D|obj)

x

…

x

…

Φx(D|bkg)

Ψxy(mx,my)+

Φ(D|mx,my)

y

…

y

…

…

…

…

…

Pair-wise Term

Likelihood Ratio (Colour)

Object Graphical Model

- Probability of labelling in addition has
- Unary potential which depend on distance from Θ (shape parameter)

Θ (shape parameter)

Unary Potential

Φx(mx|Θ)

mx

m(labels)

my

Object Category

Specific MRF

x

y

D(pixels)

Image Plane

Example

Cow Image

Object Seed

Pixels

Background Seed

Pixels

ShapePriorΘ

Prior + Contrast

Likelihood + Distance from Θ

Example

Cow Image

Object Seed

Pixels

Background Seed

Pixels

ShapePriorΘ

Prior + Contrast

Likelihood + Distance from Θ

Thought

- We can imagine rather than using user input to define histograms we use object detection.

Shape Model

- BMVC 2004

- Brunelli & Poggio, 93
- Lades, v.d. Malsburg et al. 93
- Cootes, Lanitis, Taylor et al. 95
- Amit & Geman, 95, 99
- Perona et al. 95, 96, 98, 00

Pictorial Structure

Fischler & Elschlager, 1973

Layered Pictorial Structures (LPS)

- Generative model
- Composition of parts + spatial layout

Layer 2

Spatial Layout

(Pairwise Configuration)

Layer 1

Parts in Layer 2 can occlude parts in Layer 1

How to learn LPS

- From video via motion segmentation see Kumar Torr and Zisserman ICCV 2005.
- Graph cut based method.

LPS for Detection

- Learning
- Learnt automatically using a set of examples
- Detection
- Matches LPS to image using Loopy Belief Propagation
- Localizes object parts

Detection

- Like a proposal process.

Pictorial Structures (PS)

Fischler and Eschlager. 1973

PS = 2D Parts + Configuration

Aim: Learn pictorial structures in an unsupervised manner

Layered

Pictorial

Structures

(LPS)

Parts +

Configuration +

Relative depth

- Identify parts
- Learn configuration
- Learn relative depth of parts

(x,y,,)

P1

P3

MRF

Image

MotivationMatching Pictorial Structures - Felzenszwalb et al - 2001

Outline

Texture

Part likelihood

Spatial Prior

NO

2

1

P2

(x,y,,)

P1

P3

MRF

Image

MotivationMatching Pictorial Structures - Felzenszwalb et al - 2001

- Unary potentials are negative log likelihoods

Valid pairwise configuration

Potts Model

NO

2

1

MotivationMatching Pictorial Structures - Felzenszwalb et al - 2001

- Unary potentials are negative log likelihoods

Valid pairwise configuration

Potts Model

P2

(x,y,,)

P1

P3

Image

Pr(Cow)

Bayesian Formulation (MRF)

- D = image.
- Di = pixels Є pi , given li
- (PDF Projection Theorem. )

z = sufficient statistics

- ψ(li,lj) = const, if valid configuration

= 0, otherwise.

Pott’s model

Combinatorial Optimization

- SDP formulation (Torr 2001, AI stats), best bound
- SOCP formulation (Kumar, Torr & Zisserman this conference), good compromise of speed and accuracy.
- LBP (Huttenlocher, many), worst bound.

Defining the likelihood

- We want a likelihood that can combine both the outline and the interior appearance of a part.
- Define features which will be sufficient statistics to discriminate foreground and background:

Features

- Outline: z1 Chamfer distance
- Interior: z2 Textons
- Model joint distribution of z1 z2 as a 2D Gaussian.

Chamfer Match Score

- Outline (z1) : minimum chamfer distances over multiple outline exemplars
- dcham= 1/n Σi min{ minj ||ui-vj ||, τ }

Image

Edge Image

Distance Transform

Texton Match Score

- Texture(z2) : MRF classifier
- (Varma and Zisserman, CVPR ’03)
- Multiple texture exemplars x of class t
- Textons: 3 X 3 square neighbourhood
- VQ in texton space
- Descriptor: histogram of texton labelling
- χ2 distance

Bag of Words/Histogram of Textons

- Having slagged off BoW’s I reveal we used it all along, no big deal.
- So this is like a spatially aware bag of words model…
- Using a spatially flexible set of templates to work out our bag of words.

2. Fitting the Model

- Cascades of classifiers
- Efficient likelihood evaluation
- Solving MRF
- LBP, use fast algorithm
- GBP if LBP doesn’t converge
- Could use Semi Definite Programming (2003)
- Recent work second order cone programming method best CVPR 2006.

Efficient Detection of parts

- Cascade of classifiers
- Top level use chamfer and distance transform for efficient pre filtering
- At lower level use full texture model for verification, using efficient nearest neighbour speed ups.

Cascade of Classifiers-for each part

- Y. Amit, and D. Geman, 97?; S. Baker, S. Nayer 95

Low levels on Texture

- The top levels of the tree use outline to eliminate patches of the image.
- Efficiency: Using chamfer distance and pre computed distance map.
- Remaining candidates evaluated using full texture model.

Efficient Nearest Neighbour

- Goldstein, Platt and Burges (MSR Tech Report, 2003)

Conversion from fixed

distance to rectangle

search

- bitvectorij(Rk) = 1
- = 0
- Nearest neighbour of x
- Find intervals in all dimensions
- ‘AND’ appropriate bitvectors
- Nearest neighbour search on
- pruned exemplars

RkЄ Ii

in dimension j

Inspiration

- ICCV 2003, Stenger et al.
- System developed for tracking articulated objects such as hands or bodies, based on efficient detection.

Evaluation at Multiple Resolutions

- Tree: 9000 templates of hand pointing, rigid

Marginalize out Pose

- Get an initial estimate of pose distribution.
- Use EM to marginalize out pose.

Results

Using LPS Model for Cow

In the absence of a clear boundary between object and background

Image

Segmentation

Do we really need accurate models?

- Segmentation boundary can be extracted from edges
- Rough 3D Shape-prior enough for region disambiguation

Energy of the Pose-specific MRF

Energy to be minimized

Pairwise potential

Unary term

Potts model

Shape prior

But what should be the value of θ?

The different terms of the MRF

Likelihood of being foreground given a foreground histogram

Likelihood of being foreground given all the terms

Shape prior model

Grimson-Stauffer segmentation

Shape prior (distance transform)

Resulting Graph-Cuts segmentation

Original image

Solve via gradient descent

- Comparable to level set methods
- Could use other approaches (e.g. Objcut)
- Need a graph cut per function evaluation

- Kohli and Torr showed how dynamic graph cuts can be used to efficiently find MAP solutions for MRFs that change minimally from one time instant to the next: Dynamic Graph Cuts (ICCV05).

… to compute the MAP of E(x) w.r.t the pose, it means that the unary terms will be changed at EACH iteration and the maxflow recomputed!

SA

differences

between

A and B

PB*

Simpler

problem

A and B

similar

SB

Dynamic Graph CutsPA

cheaper

operation

PB

computationally

expensive operation

Reparametrization

Source (0)

Key Observation

9 + α

2

Adding a constant to both the

t-edges of a node does not change the edges constituting the st-mincut.

1

a1

a2

2

4 + α

5

Sink (1)

E (a1,a2) = 2a1 + 5ā1+ 9a2 + 4ā2 + 2a1ā2 +ā1a2

E*(a1,a2 ) = E(a1,a2) + α(a2+ā2)

= E(a1,a2) + α [a2+ā2 =1]

Reparametrization, second type

Source (0)

Other type of reparametrization

9 + α

2

All reparametrizations of the graph are sums of these two types.

1 - α

a1

a2

2 + α

5 + α

4

Sink (1)

E* (a1,a2) = E (a1,a2) + αā1+ αa2 + αa1ā2 - αā1a2

E* (a1,a2) = E (a1,a2) + α (ā1+ a2 + a1(1-a2)- ā1a2)

E* (a1,a2) = E (a1,a2) + α

Reparametrization, second type

Source (0)

Other type of reparametrization

9 + α

2

All reparametrizations of the graph are sums of these two types.

1 - α

a1

a2

2 + α

5 + α

4

Sink (1)

Both maintain the solution and add a constant α to the energy.

Reparametrization

- Nice result (easy to prove)
- All other reparametrizations can be viewed in terms of these two basic operations.
- Proof in Hammer, and also in one of Vlad’s recent papers.

Graph Re-parameterization

Edges cut

s

flow/residual capacity

5/2

1/0

0/7

0/1

Compute

Maxflow

3/2

0/5

xi

xj

xi

xj

0/12

0/9

st-mincut

2/0

4/0

0/2

0/4

t

t

Gr

G

residual graph

original graph

excess flow (e) = flow – new capacity

= 5 – 4 = 1

Update t-edgeCapacitiess

capacity

changes from

7 to 4

5/-1

1/0

3/2

xi

xj

edge capacity

constraint violated!

(flow > capacity)

0/12

2/0

4/0

t

G`

updated residual graph

excess flow (e) = flow – new capacity

= 5 – 4 = 1

add e to both t-edges

connected to node i

Update t-edgeCapacitiess

capacity

changes from

7 to 4

5/-1

1/0

3/2

xi

xj

edge capacity

constraint violated!

(flow > capacity)

0/12

2/0

4/0

t

G`

updated residual graph

Update t-edgeCapacities

excess flow (e) = flow – new capacity

s

= 5 – 4 = 1

capacity

changes from

7 to 4

5/0

1/0

add e to both t-edges

connected to node i

3/2

xi

xj

edge capacity

constraint violated!

(flow > capacity)

0/12

2/1

4/0

t

G`

updated residual graph

Update n-edgeCapacities

s

- Capacity changes from 5 to 2
- - edge capacity constraint violated!

5/2

1/0

3/-1

xi

xj

0/12

2/0

4/0

t

Updated residual graph

G`

Update n-edgeCapacities

s

- Capacity changes from 5 to 2
- - edge capacity constraint violated!
- Reduce flow to satisfy constraint

5/2

1/0

3/-1

xi

xj

0/12

2/0

4/0

t

Updated residual graph

G`

Update n-edgeCapacities

s

- Capacity changes from 5 to 2
- - edge capacity constraint violated!
- Reduce flow to satisfy constraint
- causes flow imbalance!

1/0

5/2

2/0

excess

xi

xj

0/11

deficiency

2/0

4/0

t

Updated residual graph

G`

Update n-edgeCapacities

s

- Capacity changes from 5 to 2
- - edge capacity constraint violated!
- Reduce flow to satisfy constraint
- causes flow imbalance!
- Push excess flow to/from the terminals
- Create capacity by adding α = excess to both t-edges.

1/0

5/2

2/0

excess

xi

xj

0/11

deficiency

2/0

4/0

t

Updated residual graph

G`

Update n-edgeCapacities

s

- Capacity changes from 5 to 2
- - edge capacity constraint violated!
- Reduce flow to satisfy constraint
- causes flow imbalance!
- Push excess flow to the terminals
- Create capacity by adding α = excess to both t-edges.

5/3

2/0

2/0

xi

xj

0/11

3/0

4/1

t

Updated residual graph

G`

Update n-edgeCapacities

s

- Capacity changes from 5 to 2
- - edge capacity constraint violated!
- Reduce flow to satisfy constraint
- causes flow imbalance!
- Push excess flow to the terminals
- Create capacity by adding α = excess to both t-edges.

5/3

2/0

2/0

xi

xj

0/11

3/0

4/1

t

Updated residual graph

G`

MAP solution

First segmentation problem

Ga

difference

between

Ga and Gb

residual graph (Gr)

second segmentation problem

updated residual graph

G`

Gb

Our Algorithm

Dynamic Graph Cut vs Active Cuts

- Our method flow recycling
- AC cut recycling
- Both methods: Tree recycling

ExperimentalAnalysis

Running time of the dynamic algorithm

MRF consisting of 2x105 latent variables connected in a 4-neighborhood.

ExperimentalAnalysis

Image segmentation in videos (unary & pairwise terms)

EnergyMRF=

Image resolution: 720x576 static: 220 msec dynamic (optimized): 50 msec

Dynamic Graph Cuts

Graph Cuts

Segmentation + Pose inference

[Images courtesy: M. Black, L. Sigal]

Segmentation + Pose inference

[Images courtesy: Vicon]

Max-Marginals for Parameter Learning

- Use Max-marginals instead of Pseudo marginals from LBP (from Sanjiv Kumar)

Results

- Model House

Results

- Stone carving

Results

- Haniwa

Conclusion

- Combining pose inference and segmentation worth investigating.
- Lots more to do to extend MRF models
- Combinatorial Optimization is a very interesting and hot area in vision at the moment.
- Algorithms are as important as models.

Download Presentation

Connecting to Server..