A Hierarchical Framework for Spectral Correspondence

  • Marco Carcassoni
  • Edwin R. Hancock
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2350)


The modal correspondence method of Shapiro and Brady aims to match point-sets by comparing the eigenvectors of a pairwise point proximity matrix. Although elegant by means of its matrix representation, the method is notoriously susceptible to differences in the relational structure of the point-sets under consideration. In this paper we demonstrate how the method can be rendered robust to structural differences by adopting a hierarchical approach. We place the modal matching problem in a probabilistic setting in which the correspondences between pairwise clusters can be used to constrain the individual point correspondences. To meet this goal we commence by describing an iterative method which can be applied to the point proximity matrix to identify the locations of pairwise modal clusters. Once we have assigned points to clusters, we compute within-cluster and between-cluster proximity matrices. The modal co-efficients for these two sets of proximity matrices are used to compute cluster correspondence and cluster-conditional point correspondence probabilities. A sensitivity study on synthetic point-sets reveals that the method is considerably more robust than the conventional method to clutter or point-set contamination.


Modal Matrix Point Correspondence Modal Cluster Hierarchical Framework Proximity Matrix 
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.


  1. 1.
    F.R.K. Chung, Spectral Graph Theory, CBMS series 92, AMS Ed., 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Carcassoni and E.R. Hancock, ” Point Pattern Matching with Robust Spectral Correspondence ”, IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, IEEE Computer Society Press, I, pp. 649–655, 2000.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.
    T. Hofmann and J.M. Buhmann, “Pairwise Data Clustering by Deterministic Annealing”, PAMI(19), No. 1, January 1997, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Horaud and H. Sossa, ”Polyhedral Object Recognition by Indexing”, Pattern Recognition, 28, pp. 1855–1870, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Inoue and K. Urahama, ”Sequential fuzzy cluster extraction by a graph spectral method”, Pattern Recognition Letters, 20, pp. 699–705, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Mokhtarian and R. Suomela, “Robust Image Corner Detection Through Curvature Scale Space”, IEEE PAMI, 20:12, pp. 1376–1381, December 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P Perona and W Freeman, “A Factorisation Approach to Grouping”, ECCV 98, Vol 1, pp 655–670, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Sarkar and K.L. Boyer, K.L., “Quantitative Measures of Change Based on Feature Organization: Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors”, CVIU(71), No. 1, July 1998, pp. 110–136.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Sarkar and P. Soundararajan, “Supervised Learning of Large Perceptual Organization: Graph Spectral Partitioning and Learning Automata”, PAMI(22), No. 5, May 2000, pp. 504–525.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Sclaroff and A. Pentland, “Modal Matching for Correspondence and Recognition”, IEEE PAMI, 17:6, pp. 545–561, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G.L. Scott and H.C. Longuet-Higgins, “An algorithm for associating the features of 2 images”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B (Biological), 244, pp. 21–26, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Sengupta and K.L. Boyer, ”Modelbase partitioning using property matrix spectra”, Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 70:2, pp. 177–196, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    L.S. Shapiro and J.M. Brady, “Feature-based correspondence-an eigenvector approach”, Image and Vision Computing, 10, pp. 283–288, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Shi and J. Malik, ”Normalized cuts and image segmentation”, Proc. of the IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Shokoufandeh, S.J. Dickinson, K. Siddiqi and S.W. Zucker, ”Indexing using a spectral encoding of topological structure”, Proc. of the IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 491–497, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Umeyama, “An eigen decomposition approach to weighted graph matching problems”, IEEE PAMI, 10, pp. 695–703, 1988.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Y. Weiss, “Segmentation using Eigenvectors: A Unifying View”, International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 975–982, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Carcassoni
    • 1
  • Edwin R. Hancock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations