A Comparison Study on Two Multi-scale Shape Matching Schemes

  • Bo Li
  • Henry Johan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5359)


We present and compare two multi-scale shape matching schemes: Chi-square distance based scheme and pyramid matching mode based scheme. We define a shape as a set of points. Multi-scale shape matching includes two steps: multi-scale feature extraction and point correspondence. We define a hybrid feature for every point by combining a global multi-scale shape context feature and a local variation feature. The two schemes have a difference in the computation of multi-scale shape context feature distance: the Chi-square distance based scheme directly sums up weighted Chi-square distances at different scales while the pyramid matching mode based scheme utilizes a multi-scale pyramid matching mode. Experimental results based on Frenkel and Kimia databases show that: (1) the pyramid matching mode based scheme can achieve robust and often better performance than the Chi-square distance based scheme; (2) the proposed two multi-scale schemes can achieve averagely better results than the single scale schemes.


Subsection Scheme Shape Context Hybrid Feature Histogram Intersection Fast March Method 
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.
    Antoine, J.P., Barache, D., Cesar, J.R.M., Costa, D.F.: Shape Characterization with the Wavelet Transform. Signal Processing 62(3), 265–290 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belongie, S., Malik, J., Puzicha, J.: Shape Matching and Object Recognition Using Shape Contexts. IEEE Transaction on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 24(24), 509–522 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Finkelstein, A., Salesin, D.H.: Multiresolution Curves. Computer Graphics 28(4), 261–268 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frenkel, M., Basri, R.: Curve Matching Using the Fast Marching Method. In: Proceedings of Energy Minimization Methods in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4th International Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 35–51 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frome, A., Huber, D., Kolluri, R., Bulow, T., Malik, J.: Recognizing Objects in Range Data Using Regional Point Descriptors. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 224–237 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gal, R., Cohen-Or, D.: Salient Geometric Features for Partial Shape Matching and Similarity. ACM Transactions on Graphics 25(1), 130–150 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grauman, K., Darrell, T.: The Pyramid Match Kernel: Discriminative Classification with Sets of Image Features. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, vol. 2, pp. 1458–1465 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonker, R., Volgenant, A.: A Shortest Augmenting Path Algorithm for Dense and Sparse Linear Assignment Problems. Computing 38(4), 325–340 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lazebnik, S., Schmid, C., Ponce, J.: Beyond Bags of Features: Spatial Pyramid Matching for Recognizing Natural Scene Categories. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 2, pp. 2169–2178 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ligang, L., Guopu, W., Bo, Z., Baining, G., Heung-Yeung, S.: Perceptually Based Approach for Planar Shape Morphing. In: Proceedings of the Computer Graphics and Applications, 12th Pacific Conference, pp. 111–120 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loncaric, S.: A Survey of Shape Analysis Techniques. Pattern Recognition 31(8), 983–1001 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maji, S., Berg, A.C., Malik, J.: Classification Using Intersection Kernel Support Vector Machines Is Efficient. IEEE Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (to appear, 2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mori, G., Malik, J.: Estimating Human Body Configurations Using Shape Context Matching. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 666–680 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pauly, M., Markus, G., Leif, P.K.: Efficient Simplification of Point-Sampled Geometry. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Visualization, pp. 163–170 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pauly, M., Keiser, R., Gross, M.: Mutli-Scale Feature Extraction on Point-Sampled Surfaces. In: Eurographics 2003, pp. 281–289 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith, S.M., Brady, J.M.: SUSAN—A New Approach to Low Level Image Processing. International Journal of Computer Vision 23(1), 45–78 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Veltkamp, R.C., Hagedoorn, M.: State-of-the-art in Shape Matching. Technical Report UU-CS-1999-27, Utrecht University, the Netherlands (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bo Li
    • 1
  • Henry Johan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore

Personalised recommendations