Inter and Intra-modal Deformable Registration: Continuous Deformations Meet Efficient Optimal Linear Programming

  • Ben Glocker
  • Nikos Komodakis
  • Nikos Paragios
  • Georgios Tziritas
  • Nassir Navab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4584)


In this paper we propose a novel non-rigid volume registration based on discrete labeling and linear programming. The proposed framework reformulates registration as a minimal path extraction in a weighted graph. The space of solutions is represented using a set of a labels which are assigned to predefined displacements. The graph topology corresponds to a superimposed regular grid onto the volume. Links between neighborhood control points introduce smoothness, while links between the graph nodes and the labels (end-nodes) measure the cost induced to the objective function through the selection of a particular deformation for a given control point once projected to the entire volume domain. Higher order polynomials are used to express the volume deformation from the ones of the control points. Efficient linear programming that can guarantee the optimal solution up to (a user-defined) bound is considered to recover the optimal registration parameters. Therefore, the method is gradient free, can encode various similarity metrics (simple changes on the graph construction), can guarantee a globally sub-optimal solution and is computational tractable. Experimental validation using simulated data with known deformation, as well as manually segmented data demonstrate the extreme potentials of our approach.


Discrete Optimization Deformable Registration Linear Programming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hellier, P., Barillot, C.: Coupling dense and landmark-based approaches for nonrigid registration. IEEE Medical Imaging 22(2) (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pennec, X., Ayache, N., Thirion, J.P.: Landmark-based registration using features identified through differential geometry. In: Handbook of medical imaging, pp. 499–513 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hajnal, J., Hill, D.L.G., Hawkes, D.J. (eds.): Medical Image Registration. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davatzikos, C., Prince, J., Bryan, R.: Image registration based on boundary mapping (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hermosillo, G., Chefd’hotel, C., Faugeras, O.: Variational methods for multimodal image matching. Int. J. Comput. Vision 50(3), 329–343 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maes, F., Collignon, A., Vandermeulen, D., Marchal, G., Suetens, P.: Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Medical Imaging 16(2), 187–198 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zollei, L., Fisher, J., Wells, W.: An Introduction to Statistical Methods of Medical Image Registration. In: Handbook of Mathematical Models in Computer Vision, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roche, A., Malandain, G., Pennec, X., Ayache, N.: The correlation ratio as a new similarity measure for multimodal image registration. In: Wells, W.M., Colchester, A.C.F., Delp, S.L. (eds.) MICCAI 1998. LNCS, vol. 1496, pp. 1115–1124. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rohlfing, T., Maurer, C.R.J., Bluemke, D., Jacobs, M.: Volume-preserving nonrigid registration of mr breast images using free-form deformation with an incompressibility constraint. IEEE Medical Imaging 22(6) (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schnabel, J.A., Rueckert, D., Quist, M., Blackall, J.M., Castellano-Smith, A.D., Hartkens, T., Penney, G.P., Hall, W.A., Liu, H., Truwit, C.L., Gerritsen, F.A., Hill, D.L.G., Hawkes, D.J.: A generic framework for non-rigid registration based on non-uniform multi-level free-form deformations. In: Niessen, W.J., Viergever, M.A. (eds.) MICCAI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2208, pp. 573–581. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, S.Z.: Markov random field modeling in image analysis. Springer, New York (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Komodakis, N., Tziritas, G., Paragios, N.: Fast, approximately optimal solutions for single and dynamic mrfs. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Komodakis, N., Tziritas, G.: A new framework for approximate labeling via graph cuts. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forsey, D.R., Bartels, R.H.: Hierarchical b-spline refinement. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 22(4), 205–212 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fleet, D.J.: Measurement of Image Velocity. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Folkesson, J., Dam, E., Olsen, O.F., Pettersen, P., Christiansen, C.: Automatic segmentation of the articular cartilage in knee mri using a hierarchical multi-class classification scheme. In: Duncan, J.S., Gerig, G. (eds.) MICCAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3749, pp. 327–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerig, G., Jomier, M., Chakos, M.: Valmet: A new validation tool for assessing and improving 3d object segmentations. In: Niessen, W.J., Viergever, M.A. (eds.) MICCAI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2208, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Glocker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nikos Komodakis
    • 1
    • 3
  • Nikos Paragios
    • 1
  • Georgios Tziritas
    • 3
  • Nassir Navab
    • 2
  1. 1.GALEN Group, Laboratoire de Mathématiques Appliquées aux Systèmes, Ecole Centrale de Paris 
  2. 2.Chair for Computer Aided Medical Procedures & Augmented Reality, Technische Universität München 
  3. 3.Computer Science Department, University of Crete 

Personalised recommendations