How to Overcome Perceptual Aliasing in ASIFT?

  • Nicolas Noury
  • Frédéric Sur
  • Marie-Odile Berger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6453)


SIFT is one of the most popular algorithms to extract points of interest from images. It is a scale+rotation invariant method. As a consequence, if one compares points of interest between two images subject to a large viewpoint change, then only a few, if any, common points will be retrieved. This may lead subsequent algorithms to failure, especially when considering structure and motion or object recognition problems. Reaching at least affine invariance is crucial for reliable point correspondences. Successful approaches have been recently proposed by several authors to strengthen scale+rotation invariance into affine invariance, using viewpoint simulation (e.g. the ASIFT algorithm). However, almost all resulting algorithms fail in presence of repeated patterns, which are common in man-made environments, because of the so-called perceptual aliasing. Focusing on ASIFT, we show how to overcome the perceptual aliasing problem. To the best of our knowledge, the resulting algorithm performs better than any existing generic point matching procedure.


Simulated Image Repeated Pattern Sift Feature Epipolar Line Epipolar Geometry 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brown, M., Lowe, D.: Automatic panoramic image stitching using invariant features. International Journal of Computer Vision 74, 59–73 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lowe, D.: Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision 60, 91–110 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gordon, I., Lowe, D.: Scene modelling, recognition and tracking with invariant image features. In: Proc. International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 110–119 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Se, S., Lowe, D., Little, J.: Vision-based global localization and mapping for mobile robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 21, 364–375 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matas, J., Chum, O., Urban, M., Pajdla, T.: Robust wide-baseline stereo from maximally stable extremal regions. Image and Vision Computing 22, 761–767 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mikolajczyk, K., Schmid, C.: Scale & affine invariant interest point detectors. International Journal of Computer Vision 60, 63–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mikolajczyk, K., Tuytelaars, T., Schmid, C., Zisserman, A., Matas, J., Schaffalitzky, F., Kadir, T., Gool, L.V.: A comparison of affine region detectors. International Journal of Computer Vision 65, 43–72 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Musé, P., Sur, F., Cao, F., Gousseau, Y., Morel, J.M.: An a contrario decision method for shape element recognition. International Journal of Computer Vision 69, 295–315 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lepetit, V., Fua, P.: Keypoint recognition using randomized trees. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 28, 1465–1479 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morel, J.M., Yu, G.: ASIFT: A new framework for fully affine invariant image comparison. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 2, 438–469 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molton, N.D., Davison, A.J., Reid, I.D.: Locally planar patch features for real-time structure from motion. In: Proc. British Machine Vision Conference, BMVC (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whitehead, S., Ballard, D.: Learning to perceive and act by trial and error. Machine Learning 7, 45–83 (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schaffalitzky, F., Zisserman, A.: Planar grouping for automatic detection of vanishing lines and points. Image and Vision Computing 18, 647–658 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schaffalitzky, F., Zisserman, A.: Automated location matching in movies. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 92, 236–264 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noury, N., Sur, F., Berger, M.O.: Determining point correspondences between two views under geometric constraint and photometric consistency. Research Report 7246, INRIA (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moisan, L., Stival, B.: A probabilistic criterion to detect rigid point matches between two images and estimate the fundamental matrix. International Journal of Computer Vision 57, 201–218 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cao, F., Lisani, J., Morel, J.M., Musé, P., Sur, F.: A theory of shape identification. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1948. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Desolneux, A., Moisan, L., Morel, J.M.: From Gestalt theory to image analysis: a probabilistic approach. Interdisciplinary applied mathematics. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rabin, J., Delon, J., Gousseau, Y.: A statistical approach to the matching of local features. SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences 2, 931–958 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hsiao, E., Collet, A., Hebert, M.: Making specific features less discriminative to improve point-based 3D object recognition. In: Proc. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morel, J.M., Yu, G.: ASIFT. In: IPOL Workshop (2009), (Consulted 6.30.2010)
  22. 22.
    Vedaldi, A., Fulkerson, B.: VLFeat: An open and portable library of computer vision algorithms (2008), (Consulted 6.30.2010)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Noury
    • 1
  • Frédéric Sur
    • 1
  • Marie-Odile Berger
    • 1
  1. 1.Magrit Project-TeamUHP / INPL / INRIANancyFrance

Personalised recommendations