Advertisement

An Efficient Shape Feature Extraction, Description and Matching Method Using GPU

  • Leonardo ChangEmail author
  • Miguel Arias-Estrada
  • José Hernández-Palancar
  • L. Enrique Sucar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9443)

Abstract

Shape information is an important cue for many computer vision applications. In this work we propose an invariant shape feature extraction, description and matching method for binary images, named LISF. The proposed method extracts local features from the contour to describe shape and these features are later matched globally. Combining local features with global matching allows us to a obtaining a trade-off between discriminative power and robustness to noise and occlusion in the contour. The proposed extraction, description and matching methods are invariant to rotation, translation, and scale and present certain robustness to partial occlusion. The conducted experiments in the Shapes99, Shapes216, and MPEG-7 datasets support the mentioned contributions, where different artifacts were artificially added to obtain partial occlusion as high as 60 %. For the highest occlusion levels LISF outperformed other popular shape description methods, with about 20 % higher bull’s eye score and 25 % higher accuracy in classification. Also, in this paper, we present a massively parallel implementation in CUDA of the two most time-consuming stages of LISF, i.e., the feature extraction and feature matching steps; which achieves speed-ups of up to 32x and 34x, respectively.

Keywords

Shape matching Invariant shape features Shape occlusion Efficient feature extraction Efficient feature matching GPU 

1 Introduction

Shape descriptors have proven to be useful in many image processing and computer vision applications (e.g., object detection [1, 2], image retrieval [3, 4], object categorization [5, 6], etc.). However, shape representation and description remains as one of the most challenging topics in computer vision. The shape representation problem has proven to be hard because shapes are usually more complex than appearance. Shape representation inherits some of the most important considerations in computer vision such as the robustness with respect to the image scale, rotation, translation, occlusion, noise and viewpoint. A good shape description and matching method should be able to tolerate geometric intra-class variations, but at the same time should be able to discriminate from objects of different classes.

In this work, we describe object shape locally, but global information is used in the matching step to obtain a trade-off between discriminative power and robustness. The proposed approach has been named Invariant Local Shape Features (LISF), as it extracts, describes, and matches local shape features that are invariant to rotation, translation and scale. LISF, besides closed contours, extracts and matches features from open contours making it appropriate for matching occluded or incomplete shape contours. Conducted experiments showed that while increasing the occlusion level in shape contour, the difference in terms of bull’s eye score, and accuracy of the classification gets larger in favor of LISF compared to other state of the art methods.

Another important requirement for a promising shape descriptor is computational efficiency. Several applications demand real time processing or handling large image datasets. General-Purpose Computing on Graphics Processing Units (GPGPU) is the utilization of GPUs to perform computation in applications traditionally handled by a CPU, having obtained considerable speed-ups in many computing tasks. In this work, we also propose a massively parallel implementation in GPUs of the two most time consuming stages of LISF, namely, the feature extraction and feature matching stages. Our proposed GPU implementation achieves a speed-up of up to 32x and 34x for the feature extraction and matching steps, respectively.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses some shape description and matching approaches. Section 3.1 presents the local shape feature extraction method. The feature descriptor is presented in Sect. 3.2. Its robustness and invariability to translation, rotation, scale, and its locality property are discussed in Sect. 3.3. Section 4 describes the proposed feature matching schema. The performed experiments and discussion are presented in Sect. 6. Finally, Sect. 7 concludes the paper with a summary of our proposed methods, main contributions, and future work.

2 Related Work

Some recent works where shape descriptors are extracted using all the pixel information within a shape region include Zernike moments [7], Legendre moments [8], and generic Fourier descriptor [9]. The main limitation of region-based approaches resides in that only global shape characteristics are captured, without taking into account important shape details. Hence, the discriminative power of these approaches is limited in applications with large intra-class variations or with databases of considerable size.

Curvature scale space (CSS) [10], multi-scale convexity concavity (MCC) [11] and multi-scale Fourier-based descriptor [12] are shape descriptors defined in a multi-scale space. In CSS and MCC, by changing the sizes of Gaussian kernels in contour convolution, several shape approximations of the shape contour at different scales are obtained. CSS uses the number of zero-crossing points at these different scale levels. In MCC, a curvature measure based on the relative displacement of a contour point between every two consecutive scale levels is proposed. The multi-scale Fourier-based descriptor uses a low-pass Gaussian filter and a high-pass Gaussian filter, separately, at different scales.

The main drawback of multi-scale space approaches is that determining the optimal parameter of each scale is a very difficult and application dependent task.

Geometric relationships between sampled contour points have been exploited effectively for shape description. Shape context (SC) [13] finds the vectors of every sample point to all the other boundary points. The length and orientation of the vectors are quantized to create a histogram map which is used to represent each point. To make the histogram more sensitive to nearby points than to points farther away, these vectors are put into log-polar space. The triangle-area representation (TAR) [14] signature is computed from the area of the triangles formed by the points on the shape boundary. TAR measures the convexity or concavity of each sample contour point using the signed areas of triangles formed by contour points at different scales. In these approaches, the contour of each object is represented by a fixed number of sample points and when comparing two shapes, both contours must be represented by the same fixed number of points. Hence, how these approaches work under occluded or uncompleted contours is not well-defined. Also, most of these kind of approaches can only deal with closed contours and/or assume a one-to-one correspondence in the matching step.

In addition to shape representations, in order to improve the performance of shape matching, researchers have also proposed alternative matching methods designed to get the most out of their shape representations. In [15], the authors proposed a hierarchical segment-based matching method that proceeds in a global to local direction. The locally constrained diffusion process proposed in [16] uses a diffusion process to propagate the beneficial influence that offer other shapes in the similarity measure of each pair of shapes. Authors in [17] replace the original distances between two shapes with distances induced by geodesic paths in the shape manifold.

Shape descriptors which only use global or local information will probably fail in presence of transformations and perturbations of shape contour. Local descriptors are accurate to represent local shape features, however, are very sensitive to noise. On the other hand, global descriptors are robust to local deformations, but can not capture the local details of the shape contour. In order to balance discriminative power and robustness, in this work we use local features (contour fragments) for shape representation; later, in the matching step, in a global manner, the structure and spatial relationships between the extracted local features are taken into account to compute shapes similarity. To improve matching performance, specific characteristics such as scale and orientation of the extracted features are used. The extraction, description and matching processes are invariant to rotation, translation and scale changes. In addition, there is not restriction about only dealing with closed contours or silhouettes, i.e. the method also extract features from open contours.

The shape representation method used to described our extracted contour fragments is similar to that of shape context [13]. Besides locality, the main difference between these descriptors is that in [13] the authors obtain a histogram for each point in the contour, while we only use one histogram for each contour fragment, i.e. our representation is more compact. Unlike our proposed method, shape context assumes a one-to-one correspondence between points in the matching step, which makes it more sensitive to occlusion.

The main contribution of this paper is a local shape feature extraction, description and matching schema that (i) is invariant to rotation, translation and scaling, (ii) provides a balance between distinctiveness and robustness thanks to the local character of the extracted features, which are later matched using global information, (iii) deals with either closed or open contours, and (iv) is simple and easy to compute. An additional contribution is a massively parallel implementation in GPUs of the proposed method.

3 Proposed Local Shape Feature Descriptor

Psychological studies [18, 19] show that humans are able to recognize objects from fragments of contours and edges. Hence, if the appropriate contour fragments of an object are selected, they are representative of it.

Straight lines are not very discriminative since they are only defined by their length (which is useless when looking for scale invariance). However, curves provide a richer description of the object as these are defined, in addition to its length, by its curvature (a line can be seen as a specific case of a curve, i.e., a curve with null curvature). Furthermore, in the presence of variations such as changes in scale, rotation, translation, affine transformations, illumination and texture, the curves tend to remain present. In this paper we use contour fragments as repetitive and discriminant local features.

3.1 Feature Extraction

The detection of high curvature contour fragments is based on the method proposed by Chetverikov [20]. Chetverikov’s method inscribes triangles in a segment of contour points and evaluates the angle of the median vertex which must be smaller than \(\alpha _{max}\) and bigger than \(\alpha _{min}\). The sides of the triangle that lie on the median vertex are required to be larger than \(d_{min}\) and smaller than \(d_{max} \):
$$\begin{aligned} d_{min} \le || p- & {} p^+ || \le d_{max}, \end{aligned}$$
(1)
$$\begin{aligned} d_{min} \le || p- & {} p^- || \le d_{max}, \end{aligned}$$
(2)
$$\begin{aligned} \alpha _{min} \le&\alpha&\le \alpha _{max}, \end{aligned}$$
(3)
\(d_{min}\) and \(d_{max}\) define the scale limits, and are set empirically in order to avoid detecting contour fragments that are known to be too small or too large. \(\alpha _{min}\) and \(\alpha _{max}\) are the angle limits that determine the minimum and maximum sharpness accepted as high curvature. In our experiments we set \(d_{min} = 10\) pixels, \(d_{max}=300\) pixels, \(\alpha _{min}=5^{\circ }\), and \(\alpha _{max} = 150^{\circ }\).
Several triangles can be found over the same point or over adjacent points at the same curve, hence it is selected the point with the highest curvature. Each selected contour fragment i is defined by a triangle \((p_i^-, p_i, p_i^+)\), where \(p_i\) is the median vertex and the points \(p_i^-\) and \(p_i^+\) define the endpoints of the contour fragment. See Fig. 1(a).
Fig. 1.

Detection of contour fragments. (a) Are candidates contour fragments those contour fragments where it is possible to inscribe a triangle with aperture between \(\alpha _{min}\) and \(\alpha _{max}\), and adjacent sides with lengths between \(d_{min}\) and \(d_{max}\). If several triangles are found on the same point or near points, the sharpest triangle in a neighborhood is selected. (b) Noise can introduce false contour fragments (the contour fragment in yellow). (c) To counteract the false contour phenomenon we add another restriction, candidate triangles will grow until another corner is reached (Color figure online).

The Chetverikov’s corners detector has the disadvantage of not being very stable to noisy contours or highly branched contours, which may cause that false corners are selected. For example, see Fig. 1(b). In order to deal with this problem, another restriction is added to the Chetverikov’s method. Each candidate triangle \((p_k^-, p_k, p_k^+)\) will grow while the points \(p_k^-\) and \(p_k^+\) do not match any \(p_j\) point of another corner. Figure 1(c) shows how this restriction overcome the false detection in the example in Fig. 1(b).

Then, each feature \(\varsigma _i\) extracted from the contour is defined by \(\langle P_i, T_i\rangle \), where \( T_i = (p_i^-, p_i, p_i^+) \) is the triangle inscribed in the contour fragment and \(P_i = \{p_1, ..., p_n \}, p_j \in \mathbb {R}^2\) is the set of n points which form the contour fragment \(\varsigma _i \), ordered so that the point \( p_j \) is adjacent to the point \( p_ {j-1} \) and \( p_ {j +1}\). Points \( p_1, p_n \in P_i \) match with points \(p_i^-,p_i^+ \in T_i\), respectively.

3.2 Feature Description

The definition of contour fragment given by the extraction process (specifically the triangle \( (p_i^-, p_i, p_i^+) \)) provides a compact description of the contour fragment as it gives evidence of amplitude, orientation and length; however, it has low distinctiveness due to the fact that different curves can share the same triangle.

In order to give more distinctiveness to the extracted features, we represent each contour fragment in a polar space of origin \( p_i \), where the length r and the orientation \(\theta \) of each point are discretized to form a two-dimensional histogram of \(n_{r} \times n_{\theta } \) bins:
$$\begin{aligned} H_i(b) = |\{w \in P_i: (w - p_i) \in \text {bin}(b)\}|. \end{aligned}$$
(4)
Note that for a sufficiently large number of \(n_r\) and \(n_{\theta }\) this is an exact representation of the contour fragment.

3.3 Robustness and Invariability Considerations

In order to have a robust and invariant description method, several properties must be met:

Locality: The locality property is met directly from the definitions of interest contour fragment and its descriptor given in Sects. 3.1 and 3.2. A contour fragment and its descriptor only depend on a point and a set of points in a neighborhood much smaller than the image area, therefore, in both the extraction and description processes, a change or variation in a portion of the contour (produced, for example, by noise, partial occlusion or other deformation of the object), only affects the features extracted in that portion.

Translation Invariance: By construction, both the feature extraction and description processes are inherently invariant to translation since they are based on relative coordinates of the points of interest.

Rotation Invariance: The contour fragment extraction process is invariant to rotation by construction. An interest contour fragment is defined by a triangle inscribed in a contour segment, which only depends on the shape of the contour segment rather than its orientation. In the description process, it is possible to achieve rotation invariance by rotating each feature coordinate systems until alignment with the bisectrix of the vertex \( p_i \).

Scale Invariance: This could be achieved in the extraction process by extracting contour fragments at different values of \(d_{min} \) and \( d_{max} \). In the description process it is achieved by sampling contour fragments (i.e., \(P_i\)) to a fixed number M of points or by normalizing the histograms.

4 Feature Matching

In this section we describe the method for finding correspondences between LISF features extracted from two images. Let’s consider the situation of finding correspondences between \(N_Q\) features \(\{a_i\}\), with descriptors \(\{H_i^a\}\), extracted from the query image and \(N_C\) features \( \{b_i\} \), with descriptors \( \{H_i^b \} \), extracted from the database image.

The simplest criterion to establish a match between two features is to establish a global threshold over the distance between the descriptors, i.e., each feature \( a_i \) will match with those features \( \{b_j\} \) which are at distance \(D(a_i, b_j) \) below a given threshold. Usually, matches are restricted to nearest neighbors in order to limit multiple false positives. Some intrinsic disadvantages of this approach limit its use; such as determining the number of nearest neighbors depends on the specific application and type of features and objects. The mentioned approach obviates the spatial relations between the parts (local features) of objects, which is a determining factor. Also, it fails in the case of objects with multiple occurrences of the structure of interest or objects with repetitive parts (e.g. buildings of several equal windows). In addition, the large variability of distances between the descriptors of different features makes the task of finding an appropriate threshold a very difficult task.

To overcome the previous limitations, we propose an alternative for feature matching that takes into account the structure and spatial organization of the features. The matches between the query features and database features are validated by rejecting casual or wrong matches.

4.1 Finding Candidate Matches

Let’s first define the scale and orientation of a contour fragment.

Let the feature \(\varsigma _i\) be defined by \(\langle P_i, T_i\rangle \), its scale \(s_{\varsigma _i}\) is defined as the magnitude of the vector \(\mathbf {p_i^+} + \mathbf {p_i^-}\), where \(\mathbf {p_i^+}\) and \(\mathbf {p_i^-}\) are the vectors with initial point in \(p_i\) and terminal points in \(p_i^+\) and \(p_i^-\), respectively, i.e.,
$$\begin{aligned} s_{\varsigma _i} = |\mathbf {p_i^+} + \mathbf {p_i^-}|. \end{aligned}$$
(5)
The orientation \(\phi _{\varsigma _i}\) of the feature \(\varsigma _i\) is given by the direction of vector \(\mathbf {p_i}\), which we will call orientation vector of feature \(\varsigma _ i\), and is defined as the vector that is just in the middle of vector \(\mathbf {p_i^+}\) and vector \(\mathbf {p_i^-}\), i.e.,
$$\begin{aligned} \mathbf {p_i} = \mathbf {\hat{p}_i^+} + \mathbf {\hat{p}_i^-}, \end{aligned}$$
(6)
where \(\mathbf {\hat{p}_i^+}\) and \(\mathbf {\hat{p}_i^-}\) are the unit vectors with same direction and origin that \(\mathbf {p_i^+}\) and \(\mathbf {p_i^-}\), respectively.

We already defined the terms scale and orientation of a feature \(\varsigma _i\). In the process of finding candidate matches, for each feature \(a_i\), its K nearest neighbors \(\{b_j^K\}\) in the candidate image are found by comparing their descriptors (in this work we use \(\chi ^2\) distance to compare histograms). Our method tries to find among the K nearest neighbors the best match (if any), so K can be seen as an accuracy parameter. To provide the method with rotation invariance the feature descriptors are normalized in terms of orientation. This normalization is performed by rotating the polar coordinate system of each feature by a value equal to \(-\phi _{\varsigma _i}\) (i.e., all features are set to orientation zero) and calculated their descriptors. The scale and translation invariance in the descriptors is accomplished by construction (for details see Sect. 3.2).

4.2 Rejecting Casual Matches

For each pair \(\langle a_i, b_j^k \rangle \), the query image features \(\{a_i\} \) are aligned according to the correspondence \(\langle a_i, b_j^k \rangle \):
$$\begin{aligned} a_i'=(a_i \cdot s + \mathbf {t})\cdot R(\theta (a_i, b_j^k)), \end{aligned}$$
where \(s = s_{a_i}/s_{b_j^K}\) is the scale ratio between the features \(a_i\) and \(b_j^k\), \(\mathbf {t} = p_{a_i} - p_{b_j^k}\) is the translation vector from point \(p_{a_i} \) to point \(p_{k}^{b_j} \), \(R (\theta (a_i, b_j^k)) \) is the rotation matrix for a rotation, around point \(p_{a_i}\), equal to the direction of the orientation vector of feature \(a_i\) with respect to the orientation of \(b_j^k\), (i.e., \(\phi _{a_i} - \phi _{b_j^k}\)).
Once aligned both images (same scale, rotation and translation) according to correspondence \( \langle a_i, b_j^k \rangle \), for each feature \(a_i'\) its nearest neighbor \(b_v\) in \(\{b_j^k\}\) is found. Then, vector \(\mathbf {m}\) defined by \((l, \varphi )\) is calculated, where l is the distance from point \(p_ {b_v}\) of feature \(b_v\) to a reference point \(p_{\bullet }\) in the candidate object (e.g., the object centroid, the point p of some feature or any other point, but always the same point for every candidate image) and \(\varphi \) is the orientation of feature \(b_v\) with respect to the reference point \(p_{\bullet }\), i.e., the angle between the orientation vector \(\mathbf {p_{b_v}}\) of feature \(b_v\) and the vector \(\mathbf {p_\bullet }\), the latter defined from point \(p_{b_v}\) to point \(p_{\bullet }\),
$$\begin{aligned} l= & {} || p_{b_v} - p_\bullet ||,\end{aligned}$$
(7)
$$\begin{aligned} \varphi= & {} \arccos \left( \frac{\mathbf {p_{b_v}} \cdot \mathbf {p_\bullet }}{||\mathbf {p_{b_v}}|| ||\mathbf {p_\bullet }||}\right) . \end{aligned}$$
(8)
Fig. 2.

Matches between local shape descriptors in two images. It can be seen how these matches were found even in presence of rotation, scale and translation changes.

Having obtained \(\mathbf {m} \), the point \(p_\circ \), given by the point at a distance l from point \(p_{a_i'}\) of feature \(a_i'\) and orientation \(\varphi \) respect to its orientation vector \(\mathbf {p_{a_i'}}\), is found,
$$\begin{aligned} p_\circ ^x= & {} p_{a_i'}^x + l \cdot \cos (\phi _{a_i'} + \varphi ),\end{aligned}$$
(9)
$$\begin{aligned} p_\circ ^y= & {} p_{a_i'}^y + l \cdot \sin (\phi _{a_i'} + \varphi ). \end{aligned}$$
(10)
Intuitively, if \(\langle a_i, b_j^k \rangle \) is a correct match, most of the points \(p_\circ \) should be concentrated around the point \(p_\bullet \). This idea is what allows us to accept or reject a candidate match \(\langle a_i, b_j^k \rangle \). With this aim, we defined a matching measure \(\varOmega \) between features \(a_i\) and \(b_j^k\) as a measure of dispersion of points \(p_\circ \) around point \(p_\bullet \),
$$\begin{aligned} \varOmega = \sqrt{\frac{\sum _{i=1}^{N_Q}{||p_\circ ^i-p_\bullet ||^2}}{N_Q}}. \end{aligned}$$
(11)
Using this measure, \(\varOmega \), we can determine the best match for each feature \(a_i\) of the query image in the candidate image, or reject any weak match having \(\varOmega \) above a given threshold \(\lambda _{\varOmega }\). A higher threshold means supporting larger deformations of the shape, but also more false matches. In Fig. 2, the matches between features extracted from silhouettes of two different instances of the same object class are shown, the robustness to changes in scale, rotation and translation can be appreciated.

5 Efficient LISF Feature Extraction and Matching

In this section, we present a massively parallel implementation in GPUs of the two most time-consuming stages of LISF, i.e., the feature extraction and the feature matching steps.

5.1 Implementation of Feature Extraction Using CUDA

As mentioned in Sect. 3.1, in the feature extraction step, for each point \(p_i\) in the contour, up to P triangles are evaluated, where P is the contour size. Each one of these evaluations are independent from each other, so there is a great potential for parallelism. We present a massively parallel implementation in CUDA of this stage by obtaining in parallel the candidate triangle of each point \(p_i\) in the contour.

All the triangles of a point \(p_i\) are evaluated in a block. The constraints of each triangle (Eqs. 13) are evaluated in a thread; triangles that fulfill these constrains, i.e., candidate triangles, are tiled into the shared memory in order to increase data reutilization and decrease global memory accesses. Later, in each block the highest curvature candidate triangle of corresponding point \(p_i\) is selected. The final step, i.e., the selection of the shaper triangle in the neighborhood, is performed in the host. As there are only a few candidate triangles in a neighborhood, this is a task which is more favored to be performed in the CPU.

5.2 Implementation of Feature Matching Using CUDA

Finding candidate matches involves \(N_Q \times N_C\) chi-squared comparisons of feature descriptors, where \(N_Q\) and \(N_C\) are the number of features extracted from the query and the database images, respectively. Also, rejecting casual matches needs \(N_Q \times N_C\) chi-squared comparisons after alignment. Therefore, a great potential for parallelism is also present in these stages. We propose a massively parallel implementation in CUDA for the chi-squared comparison of \(N_Q \times N_C\) descriptors.

Given the sets of descriptors extracted from the query and the candidate image, i.e., \(Q = \{q_1, q_2,...,q_{N_Q}\}\) and \(C=\{c_1, c_2,...,c_{N_C}\}\), respectively, where the size of each descriptor is given by \(n_r \times n_\theta \). To perform \(N_Q \times N_C\) chi-squared comparisons each value in descriptor \(q_i\) is used \(N_C\) times. In order to increase data reutilization and decrease global memory accesses, Q and C are tiled into the shared memory. In each device block the chi-squared distances between every pair of descriptors in \(a \subset Q\) and \(b \subset C\) are computed, where \(|a| \ll N_Q\) and \(|b| \ll N_C\). Then, all the comparison are obtained in |b| iterations, where in the jth iteration the threads in the block compute the chi-squared distance of the jth descriptor in b against every descriptor in a. Figure 3 shows a graphical representation.

For values of \(N_Q\) and \(N_C\) such that the features and comparison results do not fit in the device global memory, the data could be partitioned and the kernel lunched several times.
Fig. 3.

Overview of the proposed feature comparison method in GPU.

6 Experimental Results

Performance of the proposed LISF method has been evaluated on three different well-known datasets. The first dataset is the Kimia Shapes99 dataset [21], which includes nine categories and eleven shapes in each category with variations in form, occlusion, articulation and missing parts. The second dataset is the Kimia Shapes216 dataset [21]. This database consists of 18 categories with 12 shapes in each category. The third dataset is the MPEG-7 CE-Shape-1 dataset [22], which consists of 1400 images (70 object categories with 20 instances per category). In the three datasets, in each image there is only one object, defined by its silhouette, and at different scales and rotations. Example shapes are shown in Fig. 4.

6.1 Shape Retrieval and Classification Experiments

In order to show the robustness of the LISF method to partial occlusion in the shape, we generated another 15 datasets by artificially introducing occlusion of different magnitudes (10 %, 20 %, 30 %, 45 % and 60 %) to the Shapes99, Shapes216 and MPEG-7 datasets. Occlusion was added by randomly choosing rectangles that occlude the desired portion of the shape contour. A sample image from the MPEG-7 dataset at different occlusion levels is shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4.

Example images and categories from (a) the Shapes99 dataset, (b) the Shapes216 dataset, and (c) the MPEG-7 dataset.

Fig. 5.

Example image from the MPEG-7 dataset with different levels of occlusion (0 %, 10 %, 20 %, 30 %, 45 % and 60 %) used in the experiments.

As a measure to evaluate and compare the performance of the proposed shape matching schema in a shape retrieval scenario we use the so-called bull’s eye score. Each shape in the database is compared with every other shape model, and the number of shapes of the same class that are among the \(2N_c\) most similar is reported, where \(N_c\) is the number of instances per class. The bull’s eye score is the ratio between the total number of shapes of the same class and the largest possible value.

The results obtained by LISF (\(n_r = 5\), \(n_{\theta } = 10\), \(\lambda _{\varOmega } = 0.9\)) were compared with those of the popular shape context descriptor (100 points, \(n_r = 5\), \(n_{\theta } = 12\)) [13], the Zernike moments (using 47 features) [23] and the Legendre moments (using 66 features) [8]. Rotation invariance can be achieve by shape context, but it has several drawbacks, as mentioned in [13]. In order to perform a fair comparison between LISF (which is rotation invariant) and shape context, in our experiments the non-rotation invariant implementation of shape context is used, and images used by shape context were rotated so that the objects had the same rotation.

Motivated by efficiency issues, for the MPEG-7 CE-Shape-1 dataset we used only 10 of the 70 categories (selected randomly) with its 20 samples each. The bull’s eye score implies all-against-all comparisons and experiments had to be done across the 18 datasets for the LISF, shape context, Zernike moments and Legendre moments methods. There is no loss of generality in using a subset of the MPEG-7 dataset since the aim of the experiment is to compare the behavior of the LISF method against other methods, across increasing levels of occlusion.
Fig. 6.

Bull’s eye score comparison between LISF, shape context, Zernike moments and Legendre moments in the (a) Shapes99, (b) Shapes216 and (c) MPEG-7 datasets with different partial occlusions (0 %, 10 %, 20 %, 30 %, 45 % and 60 %) (Color figure online).

As a similarity measure of image a with image b, with local features \(\{a_i\} \) and \(\{b_j\} \) respectively, we use the ratio between the number of features in \(\{a_i\} \) that found matches in \(\{b_j\} \) and the total number of features extracted from a.

Figure 6 shows the behavior of the bull’s eye score of each method while increasing partial occlusion in the Shapes99, Shapes216 and MPEG-7 datasets. Bull’s eye score is computed for each of the 18 datasets independently.
Fig. 7.

Top 5 retrieved images and similarity score. In each row retrieval results for the beetle-5 image in the six MPEG-7 based databases. Red retrieval scores represent images that do not belong to the same class of the query image (Color figure online).

As expected, the LISF method outperforms the shape context, Zernike moments and Legendre moments methods. Moreover, while increasing the occlusion level, the difference in terms of bull’s eye score gets bigger, with about 15–20 % higher bull’s eye score across highly occluded images; which shows the advantages of the proposed method over the other three.

Figure 7 shows the top 5 retrieved images and its retrieval score for the beetle-5 image with different occlusions. Top 5 retrieved images are shown for each database at different occlusion levels, respectively (MPEG-7 with 0 % to 60 % partial occlusion). The robustness to partial occlusion of the LISF method can be appreciated. Retrieval score of images that do not belong to the same class as the query image are depicted in bold italic.

In a second set of experiments, the proposed method is tested and compared to shape context, Zernike moments and Legendre moments in a classification task also under varying occlusion conditions. A 1-NN classifier was used, i.e., we assigned to each instance the class of its nearest neighbor. The same data as in the first set of experiments is used. In order to measure the classification performance, the accuracy measure was used. Accuracy measures the percentage of data that are correctly classified. Figure 8 shows the results of classification under different occlusion magnitudes (0 %, 10 %, 20 %, 30 %, 45 % and 60 % occlusion).
Fig. 8.

Classification accuracy comparison between LISF, shape context, Zernike moments and Legendre moments in the (a) Shapes99, (b) Shape 216, and (c) MPEG-7 dataset, with different partial occlusions (0 %, 10 %, 20 %, 30 %, 45 % and 60 %) (Color figure online).

In this set of experiments, a better performance of the LISF method compared to previous work can also be appreciated. As in the shape retrieval experiment, while increasing the occlusion level in the test images, the better is the performance of the proposed method with respect to shape context, Zernike moments and Legendre moments, with more than 25 % higher results in accuracy.
Table 1.

Average feature extraction and matching time for two images of the MPEG7 database, in seconds.

Method

Computation time (s)

Shape context

2.66

Legendre moments

7.48

Zernike moments

26.47

LISF_CPU

0.47

LISF_GPU

0.16

Fig. 9.

Computation time and achieve speed-up by the proposed massively parallel implementation in CUDA wrt. the CPU implementation for the (a,b) feature extraction and (c,d) feature matching stages of LISF (Color figure online).

6.2 Efficiency Evaluation

The computation time of LISF has been evaluated and compared to other methods. Table 1 shows the comparison of LISF computation time against shape context, Legendre moments, and Zernike moments. The reported times correspond to the average time needed to describe and match two shapes of the MPEG-7 database over 500 runs. The LISF_CPU, shape context, Legendre and Zernike moments results were obtained on a single thread of a 2.2 GHz processor and 8 GB RAM PC, and the LISF_GPU results were obtained on a NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 GPU. As can be seen in Table 1, both implementations of LISF are the least time-consuming compared with shape context, Legendre moments, and Zernike moments.

In order to show the scalability of our proposed massively parallel implementation in CUDA, we reported the time and achieved speed-up while increasing the contour size and the number of features to match for the feature extraction and feature matching stages, respectively. These results were obtained on a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 GPU and compared with those obtained in a single threaded Intel CPU Processor at 3.4 GHz.

As it can be seen in Figs. 9(a) and 9(b), tested on contours of sizes ranging from 200 to 10 000 points, the proposed feature extraction implementation on GPU achieves up to a 32x speed-up and a 16x average speed-up. For the feature matching step (see Figs. 9(c) and 9(d)), the proposed GPU implementation were tested for comparing from 50 vs. 50 to 290 vs. 290 features. The GPU implementation showed linear scaling against exponential scaling of the CPU implementation and obtained a 34x speed-up when comparing 290 vs. 290 LISF features.

7 Conclusions and Future Work

As a result of this work, a method for shape feature extraction, description and matching, invariant to rotation, translation and scale, have been developed. The proposed method allows us to overcome the intrinsic disadvantages of only using local or global features by capturing both local and global information. The conducted experiments supported the mentioned contributions, showing larger robustness to partial occlusion than other methods in the state of the art. It is also more efficient in terms of computational time than the other techniques. Also, we proposed a massively parallel implementation in CUDA of the two most time-consuming stages of LISF, i.e., the feature extraction and feature matching steps, which achieves speed-ups of up to 32x and 34x, respectively.

Moreover, the feature extraction process does not depend on accurate and perfect object segmentation since the features are extracted from both the contour and the internal edges of the object. Therefore, the method has great potential for use in “real” images (RGB or grayscale images) and also, as a complement to certain limitations of appearance based methods (e.g., SIFT, SURF, etc.); particularly in object categorization, where shape features usually offer a more generic description of objects. Future work will focus on this subject.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was supported in part by CONACYT grant Ref. CB-2008/103878 and by Instituto Nacional de Astrofısica, Óptica y Electrónica. L. Chang was supported in part by CONACYT scholarship No. 240251.

References

  1. 1.
    Toshev, A., Taskar, B., Daniilidis, K.: Shape-based object detection via boundary structure segmentation. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 99, 123–146 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang, X., Bai, X., Ma, T., Liu, W., Latecki, L. J.: Fan shape model for object detection. In: CVPR, pp. 151–158. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shu, X., Wu, X.J.: A novel contour descriptor for 2D shape matching and its application to image retrieval. Image and Vision Computing 29, 286–294 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang, X., Bai, X., Köknar-Tezel, S., Latecki, L.: Densifying distance spaces for shape and image retrieval. J. Math. Imaging Vis. 46, 12–28 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trinh, N.H., Kimia, B.B.: Skeleton search: category-specific object recognition and segmentation using a skeletal shape model. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 94, 215–240 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonzalez-Aguirre, D.I., Hoch, J., Röhl, S., Asfour, T., Bayro-Corrochano, E., Dillmann, R.: Towards shape-based visual object categorization for humanoid robots. In: ICRA, pp. 5226–5232. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim, W.Y., Kim, Y.S.: A region-based shape descriptor using zernike moments. Signal Process. Image Commun. 16, 95–102 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chong, C.W., Raveendran, P., Mukundan, R.: Translation and scale invariants of legendre moments. Pattern Recogn. 37, 119–129 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang, D., Lu, G.: Shape based image retrieval using generic fourier descriptors. Signal Process. Image Commun. 17, 825–848 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mokhtarian, F., Bober, M.: Curvature Scale Space Representation: Theory, Applications, and MPEG-7 Standardization. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adamek, T., O’Connor, N.E.: A multiscale representation method for nonrigid shapes with a single closed contour. IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. Video Technol. 14, 742–753 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Direkoglu, C., Nixon, M.: Shape classification via image-based multiscale description. Pattern Recogn. 44, 2134–2146 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belongie, S., Malik, J., Puzicha, J.: Shape matching and object recognition using shape contexts. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24, 509–522 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alajlan, N., Rube, I.E., Kamel, M.S., Freeman, G.: Shape retrieval using triangle-area representation and dynamic space warping. Pattern Recogn. 40, 1911–1920 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McNeill, G., Vijayakumar, S.: Hierarchical procrustes matching for shape retrieval. In: CVPR (1), pp. 885–894. IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang, X., Köknar-Tezel, S., Latecki, L.J.: Locally constrained diffusion process on locally densified distance spaces with applications to shape retrieval. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bai, X., Yang, X., Latecki, L.J., Liu, W., Tu, Z.: Learning context-sensitive shape similarity by graph transduction. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 32, 861–874 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Biederman, I., Ju, G.: Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition. Cogn. Psychol. 20, 38–64 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Winter, J., Wagemans, J.: Contour-based object identification and segmentation: stimuli, norms and data, and software tools. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. J. Psychon. Soc. Inc. 36, 604–624 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chetverikov, D.: A simple and efficient algorithm for detection of high curvature points in planar curves. In: Petkov, N., Westenberg, M.A. (eds.) CAIP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2756, pp. 746–753. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sebastian, T.B., Klein, P.N., Kimia, B.B.: Recognition of shapes by editing their shock graphs. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 26, 550–571 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Latecki, L.J., Lakämper, R., Eckhardt, U.: Shape descriptors for non-rigid shapes with a single closed contour. In: CVPR, pp. 1424–1429. IEEE Computer Society (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khotanzad, A., Hong, Y.H.: Rotation invariant pattern recognition using zernike moments. In: 9th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, vol. 1, pp. 326–328 (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonardo Chang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Miguel Arias-Estrada
    • 2
  • José Hernández-Palancar
    • 1
  • L. Enrique Sucar
    • 2
  1. 1.Advanced Technologies Application Center (CENATAV)HavanaCuba
  2. 2.Instituto Nacional de AstrofísicaÓptica y Electrónica (INAOE)Heróica Puebla de ZaragozaMexico

Personalised recommendations