A study of affine matching with bounded sensor error

  • W. Eric L. Grimson
  • Daniel P. Huttenlocher
  • David W. Jacobs
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 588)


Affine transformations of the plane have been used by modelbased recognition systems to approximate the effects of perspective projection. Because the underlying mathematics are based on exact data, in practice various heuristics are used to adapt the methods to real data where there is positional uncertainty. This paper provides a precise analysis of affine point matching under uncertainty. We obtain an expression for the range of affine-invariant values consistent with a given set of four points, where each data point lies in an ∃-disc. This range is shown to depend on the actual x- y-positions of the data points. Thus given uncertainty in the data, the representation is no longer invariant with respect to the Cartesian coordinate system. This is problematic for methods, such as geometric hashing, that depend on the invariant properties of the representation. We also analyze the effect that uncertainty has on the probability that recognition methods using affine transformations will find false positive matches. We find that such methods will produce false positives with even moderate levels of sensor error.


Object Recognition Image Point Recognition Method Model Point Affine Transformation 
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.
    Ballard, D.H., 1981, “Generalizing the Hough Transform to Detect Arbitrary Patterns,” Pattern Recognition 13(2): 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basri, R. & S. Ullman, 1988, “The Alignment of Objects with Smooth Surfaces,” Second Int. Conf. Comp. Vision, 482–488.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Besl, P.J. & R.C. Jain, 1985, “Three-dimensional Object Recognition,” ACM Computing Surveys, 17(1):75–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costa, M., R.M. Haralick & L.G. Shapiro, 1990, “Optimal Affine-Invariant Point Matching,” Proc. 6th Israel Conf. on AI, pp. 35–61.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cyganski, D. & J.A. Orr, 1985, “Applications of Tensor Theory to Object Recognition and Orientation Determination”, IEEE Trans. PAMI, 7(6):662–673.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Efimov, N.V., 1980, Higher Geometry, translated by P.C. Sinha. Mir Publishers, Moscow.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ellis, R.E., 1989, “Uncertainty Estimates for Polyhedral Object Recognition,” IEEE Int. Conf. Rob. Aut., pp. 348–353.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forsythe, D., J.L. Mundy, A. Zisserman, C. Coelho, A. Heller, & C. Rothwell, 1991, “Invariant Descriptors for 3-D Object Recognition and Pose”, IEEE Trans. PAMI, 13(10):971–991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grimson, W.E.L., 1990, Object Recognition by Computer: The role of geometric constraints, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grimson, W.E.L., 1990, “The Combinatorics of Heuristic Search Termination for Object Recognition in Cluttered Environments,” First Europ. Conf. on Comp. Vis., pp. 552–556.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grimson, W.E.L. & D.P. Huttenlocher, 1990, “On the Sensitivity of the Hough Transform for Object Recognition,” IEEE Trans. PAMI 12(3):255–274.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grimson, W.E.L. & D.P. Huttenlocher, 1991, “On the Verification of Hypothesized Matches in Model-Based Recognition”, IEEE Trans. PAMI 13(12):1201–1213.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grimson, W.E.L. & D.P. Huttenlocher, 1990, “On the Sensitivity of Geometric Hashing”, Proc. Third Int. Conf. Comp. Vision, pp. 334–338.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grimson, W.E.L., D.P. Huttenlocher, & D.W. Jacobs, 1991, “Affine Matching With Bounded Sensor Error: A Study of Geometric Hashing & Alignment,” MIT AI Lab Memo 1250.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huttenlocher, D.P. and S. Ullman, 1987, “Object Recognition Using Alignment”, Proc. First Int. Conf. Comp. Vision, pp. 102–111.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huttenlocher, D.P. & S. Ullman, 1990, “Recognizing Solid Objects by Alignment with an Image,” Inter. Journ. Comp. Vision 5(2):195–212.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacobs, D., 1991, “Optimal Matching of Planar Models in 3D Scenes,” IEEE Conf. Comp. Vis. and Patt. Recog. pp. 269–274.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klein, F., 1939, Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint: Geometry, MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Korn, G.A. & T.M. Korn, 1968, Mathematical Handbook for Scientists and Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lamdan, Y., J.T. Schwartz & H.J. Wolfson, 1988, “Object Recognition by Affine Invariant Matching,” IEEE Conf. Comp. Vis. and Patt. Recog. pp. 335–344.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lamdan, Y., J.T. Schwartz & H.J. Wolfson, 1990, “Affine Invariant Model-Based Object Recognition,” IEEE Trans. Rob. Aut., vol. 6, pp. 578–589.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lamdan, Y. & H.J. Wolfson, 1988, “Geometric Hashing: A General and Efficient Model-Based Recognition Scheme,” Second Int. Conf. Comp. Vis. pp. 238–249.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lamdan, Y. & H.J. Wolfson, 1991, “On the Error Analysis of ‘Geometric Hashing',” IEEE Conf. Comp. Vis. and Patt. Recog. pp. 22–27.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thompson, D. & J.L. Mundy, 1987, “Three-Dimensional Model Matching From an Unconstrained Viewpoint”, Proc. IEEE Conf. Rob. Aut. pp. 280.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Gool, L., P. Kempenaers & A. Oosterlinck, 1991, “Recognition and Semi-Differential Invariants,” IEEE Conf. Comp. Vis. and Patt. Recog. pp. 454–460.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wayner, P.C., 1991, “Efficiently Using Invariant Theory for Model-based Matching,” IEEE Conf. Comp. Vis. and Patt. Recog. pp. 473–478.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weiss, I., 1988, “Projective Invariants of Shape,” DARPA IU Workshop pp. 1125–1134.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wolfson, H.J., 1990, “Model Based Object Recognition by Geometric Hashing,” First Europ. Conf. Comp. Vis. pp. 526–536.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Eric L. Grimson
    • 1
  • Daniel P. Huttenlocher
    • 2
  • David W. Jacobs
    • 1
  1. 1.AI LabMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations