Correspondence Problems

  • Marco Alexander Treiber
Part of the Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition book series (ACVPR)


Quite numerous computer vision applications require an assignment of the elements of a set of some extracted salient positions/descriptors to their corresponding counterpart in a model set, at some point of their proceeding. Examples are object recognition or image registration schemes. Because an exhaustive evaluation of all possible combinations of individual assignments is infeasible in terms of runtime, more sophisticated approaches are required, and some of them will be presented in this chapter. Possible ways of speeding up the search are applying heuristics, as done in the so-called search tree, or iterative approaches like the iterative closest point method. A typical challenge when trying to find the correct correspondences is the existence of a quite large number of outliers, e.g., positions being spoiled by gross errors. The straightforward approach of minimizing total deviations runs into difficulties in that cases, and consequently, methods being more robust to outliers are required. Examples of robust schemes are the random sample consensus (RANSAC) or methods transforming the problem into a graph representation, such as spectral graph matching or bipartite graph matching as done in the so-called Hungarian algorithm.


Bipartite Graph Interest Point Iterative Close Point Scene Image Contour Point 
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.
    Belongie S, Malik J, Puzicha J (2002) Shape matching and object recognition using shape contexts. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 24(4):509–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14(2):239–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Choi S, Kim T, Yu W (2009) Performance evaluation of RANSAC family. In: Proceedings of the British machine vision conference, London, pp 81.1–81.12Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duchenne O, Bach F, Kweon I-S, Ponce J (2011) A tensor-based algorithm for high-order graph matching. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 33:2383–2395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Egozi A, Keller Y, Guterman H (2013) A probabilistic approach to spectral graph matching. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 35(1):18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fishler MA, Bolles RC (1981) Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Mag Commun ACM 24(6):381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitzgibbon AW (2003) Robust registration of 2D and 3D point sets. Image Vis Comput 21(13–14):1145–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris C, Stephens M (1988) A combined corner and edge detector. In: Alvey vision conference, Manchester, pp 147–151Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartley R, Zisserman A (2004) Multiple view geometry in computer vision, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978–0521540513MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jain V, Zhang H (2006) Robust 3D shape correspondence in the spectral domain. IEEE Int Conf Shape Model Appl 118–129Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jonker R, Volgenant A (1987) A shortest augmenting path algorithm for dense and sparse linear assignment problems. J Comput 38:325–340MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuhn HW (1955) The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Nav Res Logist Q 2:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leordeanu M, Herbert M (2005) A spectral technique for correspondence problems using pairwise constraints. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE international conference on computer vision, vol 2, Beijing, pp 1482–1489Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant viewpoints. Int J Comput Vis 60:91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marquardt D (1963) An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. SIAM J Appl Math 11(2):431–441MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mikolajczyk K, Schmid C (2005) A performance evaluation of local descriptors. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 27(10):1615–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mikolajczyk K, Tuytelaars T, Schmid C, Zisserman A, Matas J, Schaffalitzky F, Kadir T, Van Gool L (2005) A comparison of affine region detectors. Int J Comput Vis 65:43–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    Munkres J (1957) Algorithms for assignment and transportation problems. J Soc Ind Appl Math 5(1):32–38MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 18.
    Rubner Y, Tomasi C, Leonidas JG (2000) The earth mover’s distance as a metric for image retrieval. Int J Comput Vis 40(2):99–121MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    Rummel P, Beutel W (1984) Workpiece recognition and inspection by a model-based scene analysis system. Pattern Recognit 17(1):141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 20.
    Sahilloglu Y, Yemez Y (2012) Minimum-distortion isometric shape correspondence using EM algorithm. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 34(11):2203–2215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    Schmid C, Mohr R (1997) Local grey value invariants for image retrieval. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 19:530–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 22.
    Trefethen LN, Bau D (1997) Numerical linear algebra. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia. ISBN 978-0898713619MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 23.
    Treiber M (2010) An introduction to object recognition – selected algorithms for a wide variety of applications. Springer, London. ISBN 978–1849962346MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Alexander Treiber
    • 1
  1. 1.ASM Assembly Systems GmbH & Co. KGMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations