Detecting Instances of Shape Classes That Exhibit Variable Structure

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3951)


This paper proposes a method for detecting shapes of variable structure in images with clutter. The term “variable structure” means that some shape parts can be repeated an arbitrary number of times, some parts can be optional, and some parts can have several alternative appearances. The particular variation of the shape structure that occurs in a given image is not known a priori. Existing computer vision methods, including deformable model methods, were not designed to detect shapes of variable structure; they may only be used to detect shapes that can be decomposed into a fixed, a priori known, number of parts. The proposed method can handle both variations in shape structure and variations in the appearance of individual shape parts. A new class of shape models is introduced, called Hidden State Shape Models, that can naturally represent shapes of variable structure. A detection algorithm is described that finds instances of such shapes in images with large amounts of clutter by finding globally optimal correspondences between image features and shape models. Experiments with real images demonstrate that our method can localize plant branches that consist of an a priori unknown number of leaves and can detect hands more accurately than a hand detector based on the chamfer distance.


Hide Markov Model Edge Pixel Viterbi Algorithm Shape Part Active Shape Model 
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.
    Rabiner, L.R.: A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proc. of the IEEE 77(2), 257–286 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sebastian, T.B., Klein, P.N., Kimia, B.B.: Recognition of shapes by editing shock graphs. In: ICCV, pp. 755–762 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhu, S.C., Yuille, A.L.: FORMS: a flexible object recognition and modeling system. IJCV 20, 187–212 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kass, M., Witkin, A., Terzopoulos, D.: Snakes: Active contour models. IJCV 1, 321–331 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cootes, T.F., Taylor, C.J., Cooper, D.H., Graham, J.: Active shape models - their training and application. CVIU 61, 38–59 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coughlan, J.M., Ferreira, S.J.: Finding deformable shapes using loopy belief propagation. In: Heyden, A., Sparr, G., Nielsen, M., Johansen, P. (eds.) ECCV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2352, pp. 453–468. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sigal, L., Isard, M., Sigelman, B.H., Black, M.J.: Attractive people: Assembling loose-limbed models using non-parametric belief propagation. In: NIPS (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, J., Collins, R., Liu, Y.: Representation and matching of articulated shapes. In: CVPR, vol. 2, pp. 342–349 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amini, A.A., Weymouth, T.E., Jain, R.C.: Using dynamic programming for solving variational problems in vision. PAMI 12, 855–867 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Felzenszwalb, P.F., Huttenlocher, D.P.: Pictorial structures for object recognition. IJCV 61, 55–79 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Felzenszwalb, P.F.: Representation and Detection of Shapes in Images. PhD thesis, MIT (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geiger, D., Gupta, A., Costa, L.A., Vlontzos, J.: Dynamic programming for detecting, tracking, and matching deformable contours. PAMI 17, 294–302 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ioffe, S., Forsyth, D.A.: Probabilistic methods for finding people. IJCV 43, 45–68 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    He, Y., Kundu, A.: 2-D shape classification using Hidden Markov Model. PAMI 13, 1172–1184 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arica, N., Yarman-Vural, F.T.: A shape descriptor based on circular Hidden Markov Model. In: ICPR, pp. 1924–1927 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bicego, M., Murino, V.: Investigating Hidden Markov Models’ capabilities in 2D shape classification. PAMI 26, 281–286 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prusinkiewicz, P., Lindenmayer, A.: The algorithmic beauty of plants. Springer, New York (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Han, F., Zhu, S.C.: Bottom-up/top-down image parsing by attribute graph grammar. In: ICCV, pp. 1778–1785 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Belongie, S., Malik, J., Puzicha, J.: Shape matching and object recognition using shape contexts. PAMI 24, 509–522 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lowe, D.G.: Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. IJCV 60, 91–110 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barrow, H.G., Tenenbaum, J.M., Bolles, R.C., Wolf, H.C.: Parametric correspondence and chamfer matching: Two new techniques for image matching. In: IJCAI, pp. 659–663 (1977)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thayananthan, A., Stenger, B., Torr, P.H.S., Cipolla, R.: Shape context and chamfer matching in cluttered scenes. In: CVPR, pp. 127–133 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Siemens Corporate ResearchPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations