Sparse Coding and Mid-Level Superpixel-Feature for ℓ0-Graph Based Unsupervised Image Segmentation

  • Xiaofang Wang
  • Huibin Li
  • Simon Masnou
  • Liming Chen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8048)


We propose in this paper a graph-based unsupervised segmentation approach that combines superpixels, sparse representation, and a new mid-level feature to describe superpixels. Given an input image, we first extract a set of interest points either by sampling or using a local feature detector, and we compute a set of low-level features associated with the patches centered at the interest points. We define a low-level dictionary as the collection of all these low-level features. We call superpixel a region of an oversegmented image obtained from the input image, and we compute the low-level features associated with it. Then we compute for each superpixel a mid-level feature defined as the sparse coding of its low-level features in the aforementioned dictionary. These mid-level features not only carry the same information as the initial low-level features, but also carry additional contextual cue. We use the superpixels at several segmentation scales, their associated mid-level features, and the sparse representation coefficients to build graphs at several scales. Merging these graphs leads to a bipartite graph that can be partitioned using the Transfer Cut algorithm. We validate the proposed mid-level feature framework on the MSRC dataset, and the segmented results show improvements from both qualitative and quantitative viewpoints compared with other state-of-the-art methods.


image segmentation sparse coding superpixels mid-level features 0-graph 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cheng, B., Liu, G., Wang, J., Huang, Z., Yan, S.: Multi-task low-rank affinity pursuit for image segmentation. In: ICCV, pp. 2439–2446 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Comaniciu, D., Meer, P.: Mean shift: A robust approach toward feature space analysis. PAMI 24(5), 603–619 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Felzenszwalb, P.F., Huttenlocher, D.P.: Efficient graph-based image segmentation. IJCV 59(2), 167–181 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freixenet, J., Muñoz, X., Raba, D., Martí, J., Cufí, X.: Yet another survey on image segmentation: Region and boundary information integration. In: Heyden, A., Sparr, G., Nielsen, M., Johansen, P. (eds.) ECCV 2002, Part III. LNCS, vol. 2352, pp. 408–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fu, H., Qiu, G.: Integrating low-level and semantic features for object consistent segmentation. In: Int. Conf. on Image and Graphics (ICIG), pp. 39–44 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, Y.J., Grauman, K.: Object-graphs for context-aware visual category discovery. PAMI 34(2), 346–358 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, L.J., Su, H., Xing, E.P., Fei-Fei, L.: Object bank: A high-level image representation for scene classification and semantic feature sparsification. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, Z., Wu, X.M., Chang, S.F.: Segmentation using superpixels: A bipartite graph partitioning approach. In: CVPR, pp. 789–796 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malisiewicz, T., Efros, A.A.: Improving spatial support for objects via multiple segmentations. In: BMVC (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin, D.R., Fowlkes, C., Tal, D., Malik, J.: A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In: ICCV, pp. 416–425 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meila, M.: Comparing clusterings: an axiomatic view. In: ICML, pp. 577–584 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pati, Y., Rezaiifar, R., Krishnaprasad, P.: Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. In: 27th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, pp. 40–44 (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shi, J., Malik, J.: Normalized cuts and image segmentation. PAMI 22(8), 888–905 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shotton, J., Winn, J.M., Rother, C., Criminisi, A.: Textonboost: Joint appearance, shape and context modeling for multi-class object recognition and segmentation. In: Leonardis, A., Bischof, H., Pinz, A. (eds.) ECCV 2006, Part I. LNCS, vol. 3951, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Unnikrishnan, R., Pantofaru, C., Hebert, M.: Toward objective evaluation of image segmentation algorithms. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 29(6), 929–944 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, X., Li, H., Masnou, S., Chen, L.: A graph-cut approach to image segmentation using an affinity graph based on ℓ0 − sparse representation of features. In: IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Proc. (2013) (accepted)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yu, Z., Li, A., Au, O., Xu, C.: Bag of textons for image segmentation via soft clustering and convex shift. In: CVPR, pp. 781–788 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zou, W., Kpalma, K., Ronsin, J.: Semantic segmentation via sparse coding over hierarchical regions. In: ICIP, pp. 2577–2580 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaofang Wang
    • 1
  • Huibin Li
    • 1
  • Simon Masnou
    • 2
    • 3
  • Liming Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.LIRIS UMR5205Ecole Centrale de LyonFrance
  2. 2.CNRS UMR 5208Université de LyonFrance
  3. 3.Institut Camille JordanUniversité Lyon 1Villeurbanne cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations