Model: Parts and Structure. History of Idea Fischler & Elschlager 1973 Yuille ‘91 Brunelli & Poggio ‘93 Lades, v.d. Malsburg et al. ‘93 Cootes, Lanitis,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints David Lowe.
Advertisements

Object Recognition from Local Scale-Invariant Features David G. Lowe Presented by Ashley L. Kapron.
Learning deformable models Yali Amit, University of Chicago Alain Trouvé, CMLA Cachan.
Context-based object-class recognition and retrieval by generalized correlograms by J. Amores, N. Sebe and P. Radeva Discussion led by Qi An Duke University.
A Bayesian Approach to Recognition Moshe Blank Ita Lifshitz Reverend Thomas Bayes
Human Identity Recognition in Aerial Images Omar Oreifej Ramin Mehran Mubarak Shah CVPR 2010, June Computer Vision Lab of UCF.
Part Based Models Andrew Harp. Part Based Models Physical arrangement of features.
Object class recognition using unsupervised scale-invariant learning Rob Fergus Pietro Perona Andrew Zisserman Oxford University California Institute of.
Mixture of trees model: Face Detection, Pose Estimation and Landmark Localization Presenter: Zhang Li.
Face Detection, Pose Estimation, and Landmark Localization in the Wild
ECE 8443 – Pattern Recognition ECE 8527 – Introduction to Machine Learning and Pattern Recognition Objectives: Jensen’s Inequality (Special Case) EM Theorem.
Unsupervised Learning of Visual Object Categories Michael Pfeiffer
Clustering (1) Clustering Similarity measure Hierarchical clustering Model-based clustering Figures from the book Data Clustering by Gan et al.
Instructor: Mircea Nicolescu Lecture 13 CS 485 / 685 Computer Vision.
Unsupervised Learning for Recognition Pietro Perona California Institute of Technology & Universita di Padova 11 th British Machine Vision Conference –
In Search of Objects: 50 years of wondering : Learning-Based Methods in Vision A. Efros, CMU, Spring 2009.
EE-148 Expectation Maximization Markus Weber 5/11/99.
Beyond bags of features: Part-based models Many slides adapted from Fei-Fei Li, Rob Fergus, and Antonio Torralba.
Part 2: part-based models by Rob Fergus (MIT). Problem with bag-of-words All have equal probability for bag-of-words methods Location information is important.
Lecture 6: Feature matching CS4670: Computer Vision Noah Snavely.
1 Interest Operators Find “interesting” pieces of the image –e.g. corners, salient regions –Focus attention of algorithms –Speed up computation Many possible.
1 Interest Operator Lectures lecture topics –Interest points 1 (Linda) interest points, descriptors, Harris corners, correlation matching –Interest points.
Prénom Nom Document Analysis: Data Analysis and Clustering Prof. Rolf Ingold, University of Fribourg Master course, spring semester 2008.
Object Recognition by Parts Object recognition started with line segments. - Roberts recognized objects from line segments and junctions. - This led to.
Transferring information using Bayesian priors on object categories Li Fei-Fei 1, Rob Fergus 2, Pietro Perona 1 1 California Institute of Technology, 2.
Feature matching and tracking Class 5 Read Section 4.1 of course notes Read Shi and Tomasi’s paper on.
Object class recognition using unsupervised scale-invariant learning Rob Fergus Pietro Perona Andrew Zisserman Oxford University California Institute of.
Expectation Maximization Algorithm
Object Class Recognition Using Discriminative Local Features Gyuri Dorko and Cordelia Schmid.
Object Recognition Using Geometric Hashing
Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT)
Object Class Recognition by Unsupervised Scale-Invariant Learning R. Fergus, P. Perona, and A. Zisserman Presented By Jeff.
Statistical Shape Models Eigenpatches model regions –Assume shape is fixed –What if it isn’t? Faces with expression changes, organs in medical images etc.
1 Interest Operators Find “interesting” pieces of the image Multiple possible uses –image matching stereo pairs tracking in videos creating panoramas –object.
Object Recognition by Parts Object recognition started with line segments. - Roberts recognized objects from line segments and junctions. - This led to.
Overview Introduction to local features
Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints By David G. Lowe, University of British Columbia Presented by: Tim Havinga, Joël van Neerbos.
Part 2: part-based models
Feature and object tracking algorithms for video tracking Student: Oren Shevach Instructor: Arie nakhmani.
Multimodal Interaction Dr. Mike Spann
1 Interest Operators Harris Corner Detector: the first and most basic interest operator Kadir Entropy Detector and its use in object recognition SIFT interest.
Recognition and Matching based on local invariant features Cordelia Schmid INRIA, Grenoble David Lowe Univ. of British Columbia.
1 Mean shift and feature selection ECE 738 course project Zhaozheng Yin Spring 2005 Note: Figures and ideas are copyrighted by original authors.
Overview Harris interest points Comparing interest points (SSD, ZNCC, SIFT) Scale & affine invariant interest points Evaluation and comparison of different.
Local invariant features Cordelia Schmid INRIA, Grenoble.
Building local part models for category-level recognition C. Schmid, INRIA Grenoble Joint work with G. Dorko, S. Lazebnik, J. Ponce.
Features-based Object Recognition P. Moreels, P. Perona California Institute of Technology.
MSRI workshop, January 2005 Object Recognition Collected databases of objects on uniform background (no occlusions, no clutter) Mostly focus on viewpoint.
Bayesian Parameter Estimation Liad Serruya. Agenda Introduction Bayesian decision theory Scale-Invariant Learning Bayesian “One-Shot” Learning.
ECE 8443 – Pattern Recognition ECE 8423 – Adaptive Signal Processing Objectives: ML and Simple Regression Bias of the ML Estimate Variance of the ML Estimate.
Computer Vision Lecture 6. Probabilistic Methods in Segmentation.
Overview Introduction to local features Harris interest points + SSD, ZNCC, SIFT Scale & affine invariant interest point detectors Evaluation and comparison.
Discussion of Pictorial Structures Pedro Felzenszwalb Daniel Huttenlocher Sicily Workshop September, 2006.
ECE 8443 – Pattern Recognition Objectives: Jensen’s Inequality (Special Case) EM Theorem Proof EM Example – Missing Data Intro to Hidden Markov Models.
ECE 8443 – Pattern Recognition ECE 8527 – Introduction to Machine Learning and Pattern Recognition Objectives: Jensen’s Inequality (Special Case) EM Theorem.
1 Kernel Machines A relatively new learning methodology (1992) derived from statistical learning theory. Became famous when it gave accuracy comparable.
Part 2: part-based models by Rob Fergus (MIT). Problem with bag-of-words All have equal probability for bag-of-words methods Location information is important.
Object Recognition by Parts
Lecture 07 13/12/2011 Shai Avidan הבהרה: החומר המחייב הוא החומר הנלמד בכיתה ולא זה המופיע / לא מופיע במצגת.
LECTURE 10: EXPECTATION MAXIMIZATION (EM)
Paper Presentation: Shape and Matching
Object Recognition by Parts
Object Recognition by Parts
CSE 455 – Guest Lectures 3 lectures Contact Interest points 1
Object Recognition by Parts
Unsupervised Learning of Models for Recognition
Unsupervised learning of models for recognition
Recognition and Matching based on local invariant features
Object Recognition by Parts
Object Recognition with Interest Operators
Presentation transcript:

Model: Parts and Structure

History of Idea Fischler & Elschlager 1973 Yuille ‘91 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, Huttenlocher et al. ’00 Many papers since 2000

Representation Object as set of parts –Generative representation Model: –Relative locations between parts –Appearance of part Issues: –How to model location –How to represent appearance –Sparse or dense (pixels or regions) –How to handle occlusion/clutter Figure from [Fischler73]

Example scheme Model shape using Gaussian distribution on location between parts Model appearance as pixel templates Represent image as collection of regions –Extracted by template matching: normalized-cross correlation Manually trained model –Click on training images

Sparse representation + Computationally tractable (10 5 pixels  parts) + Generative representation of class + Avoid modeling global variability + Success in specific object recognition - Throw away most image information - Parts need to be distinctive to separate from other classes

The correspondence problem Model with P parts Image with N possible locations for each part N P combinations!!!

Connectivity of parts Complexity is given by size of maximal clique in graph Consider a 3 part model –Each part has set of N possible locations in image –Location of parts 2 & 3 is independent, given location of L –Each part has an appearance term, independent between parts. L 32 Shape Model

Different graph structures Fully connected Star structure Tree structure O(N 6 )O(N 2 ) Sparser graphs cannot capture all interactions between parts

Some class-specific graphs Articulated motion –People –Animals Special parameterisations –Limb angles Images from [Kumar05, Feltzenswalb05]

Regions or pixels # Regions << # Pixels Regions increase tractability but lose information Generally use regions: –Local maxima of interest operators –Can give scale/orientation invariance Figures from [Kadir04]

How to model location? Explicit: Probability density functions Implicit: Voting scheme Invariance –Translation –Scaling –Similarity/affine –Viewpoint Similarity transformation Translation and Scaling Translation Affine transformation

Probability densities –Continuous (Gaussians) –Analogy with springs Parameters of model,  and  –Independence corresponds to zeros in  Explicit shape model

Shape Shape is “what remains after differences due to translation, rotation, and scale have been factored out”. [Kendall84] Statistical theory of shape [Kendall, Bookstein, Mardia & Dryden] X Y Figure Space U V Shape Space  Figures from [Leung98]

Representation of appearance Dependencies between parts –Common to assume independence –Need not be –Symmetry Needs to handle intra-class variation –Task is no longer matching of descriptors –Implicit variation (VQ appearance) –Explicit probabilistic model of appearance (e.g. Gaussians in SIFT space or PCA space)

Representation of appearance Invariance needs to match that of shape model Insensitive to small shifts in translation/scale –Compensate for jitter of features –e.g. SIFT Illumination invariance –Normalize out –Condition on illumination of landmark part

Parts and Structure demo Gaussian location model – star configuration Translation invariant only –Use 1 st part as landmark Appearance model is template matching Manual training –User identifies correspondence on training images Recognition –Run template for each part over image –Get local maxima  set of possible locations for each part –Impose shape model - O(N 2 P) cost –Score of each match is combination of shape model and template responses.

Demo images Sub-set of Caltech face dataset Caltech background images

Task:Estimation of model parameters Learning using EM Let the assignments be a hidden variable and use EM algorithm to learn them and the model parameters Chicken and Egg type problem, since we initially know neither: - Model parameters - Assignment of regions to parts

Learning procedure E-step:Compute assignments for which regions belong to which part M-step:Update model parameters Find regions & their location & appearance Initialize model parameters Use EM and iterate to convergence: Trying to maximize likelihood – consistency in shape & appearance

Example scheme, using EM for maximum likelihood learning 1. Current estimate of ... Image 1 Image 2 Image i 2. Assign probabilities to constellations Large P Small P 3. Use probabilities as weights to re-estimate parameters. Example:  Large Px+Small Px pdf new estimate of  + … =

Learning Shape & Appearance simultaneously Fergus et al. ‘03