Self inducing relational distance and its application to image segmentation

  • Jianbo Shi
  • Jitendra Malik
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1406)


We propose a new feature distance which is derived from an optimal relational graph matching criterion. Instead of defining an arbitrary similarity measure for grouping, we will use the criterion of reducing instability in the relational graph to induce a similarity measure. This similarity measure not only improves the stability of the matching, but more importantly, also captures the relative importance of relational similarity in the feature space for the purpose of grouping. We will call this similarity measure the self-induced relational distance. We demonstrate the distance measure on a brightness-texture feature space and apply it to the segmentation of complex natural images.


Relational Distance Neighborhood Size Permutation Matrix Graph Match Attribute Graph 
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.
    H.G. Barrow and R.M. Burstall. Subgraph isomorphism, matching relational structures and maximal cliques. Information Processing Letters, 4:83–84, 1976.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    H.G. Barrow and R.J. Popplestone. Relational descriptions in picture processing. Machine Intelligence, 6:377–396, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. Boyer and A. Kak. Structural stereopsis for 3d vision. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 10:144–166, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.W. Brockett. Least squares matching problems. Linear Algebra and its applications, pages 761–777, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.W. Brockett. Dynamical systems that sorts lists, diagonalize matrices, and solve linear programming problem. Linear Algebra and its applications, pages 79–91, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Christmas, J. Kittle, and M. Petrou. Probabilistic feature labeling schemes — modeling compatibility coefficient distribution. Image and Vision Computing, 14:617–625, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.E. Cormen, R.L. Leiserson, and L. Rivest. Introduction to Algorithms. McGraw-Hill, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O.D. Faugeras and K.E. Price. Semantic labeling of aerial images using stochastic relaxation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 3:633–642, 1981.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Gold and A. Rangarajan. A graduated assignment algorithm for graph matching. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 18:377–388, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.J. Heeger and J.R Bergen. Pyramid-based texture analysis/synthesis. In SIGGRAPH 95, pages 229–238, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.K. Jain and F. Farrokhnia. Unsupervised texture segmentation using gabor filters. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 24(12):1167–1186, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Malik and P. Perona. Preattentive texture discrimination with early vision mechanisms. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 7(5):923–932, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.S. Manjunath and W.Y. Ma. Texture features for browsing and retrieval of image data. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 18(8):837–842, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C.H. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Puzicha, T. Hofmann, and J.M. Buhmann. Non-parametric similarity measures for unsupervised texture segmentation and image retrieval. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 267–272, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Rosenfeld, R. Hummel, and S. Zucker. Scene labeling by relaxation operations. IEEE SMC, 6:420–433, 1976.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Sanfeliu and K.S. Fu. A distance measure between attributed relational graph. IEEE SMC, 13:353–362, 1983.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    G.L. Scott and H.C. Longuet-Higgins. An algorithm for associating the features of two images. In Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., pages 21–26, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. Shapiro and R.M. Haralick. A metric for comparing relational descriptions. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 7:90–94, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Shi and J. Malik. Normalized cuts and image segmentation. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 731–737, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Umeyama. An eigendecomposition approach to weighted graph matching problems. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 10(5):695–703, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. von Neumann. Some matrix-inequalities and metrization of matric-spaces. Tomsk Univ. Rev., 1:286–300, 1937. also in John von Neumann: Collected Works, (A.H. Taub, Ed.) Vol. IV, Pergamon, New York, 1962, pp 205–218.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Vosselman. Relational Matching. Springer-Verlag, 1992. Lectures in Computer Science, number 628.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R.C. Wilson and E.R. Hancock. Structual matching by discrete relaxation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 19:1–2, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    S.C. Zhu, Y. Wu, and D. Mumford. Frame: Filters, random fields, and minimax entropy. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 686–693, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jianbo Shi
    • 1
  • Jitendra Malik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EECS, Computer Science DivisionUniversity of California at BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations