Optimizing connected component labeling algorithms

This paper presents two new strategies that can be used to greatly improve the speed of connected component labeling algorithms. To assign a label to a new object, most connected component labeling algorithms use a scanning step that examines some of its neighbors. The first strategy exploits the dependencies among them to reduce the number of neighbors examined. When considering 8-connected components in a 2D image, this can reduce the number of neighbors examined from four to one in many cases. The second strategy uses an array to store the equivalence information among the labels. This replaces the pointer based rooted trees used to store the same equivalence information. It reduces the memory required and also produces consecutive final labels. Using an array instead of the pointer based rooted trees speeds up the connected component labeling algorithms by a factor of 5 ~ 100 in our tests on random binary images.

[1]  Norberto F. Ezquerra,et al.  Model-guided labeling of coronary structure , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  Kunio Doi,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis in chest radiography , 2007, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[3]  Christophe Fiorio,et al.  Memory Management for Union-Find Algorithms , 1997, STACS.

[4]  Arie Shoshani,et al.  Using bitmap index for interactive exploration of large datasets , 2003, 15th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, 2003..

[5]  Tim W. Nattkemper,et al.  Automatic segmentation of digital micrographs: A survey , 2004, MedInfo.

[6]  Kenji Suzuki,et al.  Linear-time connected-component labeling based on sequential local operations , 2003, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[7]  Hanan Samet,et al.  A general approach to connected-component labeling for arbitrary image representations , 1992, JACM.

[8]  Hanan Samet,et al.  Connected Component Labeling Using Quadtrees , 1981, JACM.

[9]  Christophe Fiorio,et al.  Two Linear Time Union-Find Strategies for Image Processing , 1996, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Dana H. Ballard,et al.  Computer Vision , 1982 .

[11]  Stephen Alstrup,et al.  Worst-case and amortised optimality in union-find (extended abstract) , 1999, STOC '99.

[12]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Efficiency of a Good But Not Linear Set Union Algorithm , 1972, JACM.

[13]  Jon Doyle,et al.  Linear Expected Time of a Simple Union-Find Algorithm , 1976, Inf. Process. Lett..

[14]  Xavier Cufí,et al.  Yet Another Survey on Image Segmentation: Region and Boundary Information Integration , 2002, ECCV.

[15]  Akshay K. Singh,et al.  Deformable models in medical image analysis , 1996, Proceedings of the Workshop on Mathematical Methods in Biomedical Image Analysis.

[16]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  A linear-time algorithm for a special case of disjoint set union , 1983, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[17]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  On the expected behavior of disjoint set union algorithms , 1985, STOC '85.

[18]  Chun-Jen Chen,et al.  A linear-time component-labeling algorithm using contour tracing technique , 2004, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[19]  Demetri Terzopoulos,et al.  Deformable models in medical image analysis: a survey , 1996, Medical Image Anal..

[20]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis in chest radiography: a survey , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[21]  Masashi Koga,et al.  A high-speed algorithm for propagation-type labeling based on block sorting of runs in binary images , 1990, [1990] Proceedings. 10th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.