Shock-Based Indexing into Large Shape Databases

This paper examines issues arising in applying a previously developed edit-distance shock graph matching technique to indexing into large shape databases. This approach compares the shock graph topology and attributes to produce a similarity metric, and results in 100% recognition rate in querying a database of approximately 200 shapes. However, indexing into a significantly larger database is faced with both the lack of a suitable database, and more significantly with the expense related to computing the metric. We have thus (i) gathered shapes from a variety of sources to create a database of over 1000 shapes from forty categories as a stage towards developing an approach for indexing into a much larger database; (ii) developed a coarse-scale approximate similarly measure which relies on the shock graph topology and a very coarse sampling of link attributes. We show that this is a good first-order approximation of the similarly metric and is two orders of magnitude more efficient to compute. An interesting outcome of using this efficient but approximate similarity measure is that the approximation naturally demands a notion of categories to give high precision; (iii) developed an exemplar-based indexing scheme which discards a large number of non-matching shapes solely based on distance to exemplars, coarse scale representatives of each category. The use of a coarse-scale matching measure in conjunction with a coarse-scale sampling of the database leads to a significant reduction in the computational effort without discarding correct matches, thus paving the way for indexing into databases of tens of thousands of shapes.

[1]  Hans-Peter Kriegel,et al.  The X-tree : An Index Structure for High-Dimensional Data , 2001, VLDB.

[2]  Philip N. Klein,et al.  A tree-edit-distance algorithm for comparing simple, closed shapes , 2000, SODA '00.

[3]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Object Recognition in Man, Monkey, and Machine , 2000 .

[4]  Jeffrey K. Uhlmann,et al.  Satisfying General Proximity/Similarity Queries with Metric Trees , 1991, Inf. Process. Lett..

[5]  Daphna Weinshall,et al.  Flexible Syntactic Matching of Curves and Its Application to Automatic Hierarchical Classification of Silhouettes , 1999, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[6]  Euripides G. M. Petrakis,et al.  Shape retrieval based on dynamic programming , 2000, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[7]  Hanan Samet,et al.  The Quadtree and Related Hierarchical Data Structures , 1984, CSUR.

[8]  William I. Grosky,et al.  Index-based object recognition in pictorial data management , 1990, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[9]  R. Shepard,et al.  Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. , 1987, Science.

[10]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Matching Shapes , 2001, ICCV.

[11]  Alan L. Yuille,et al.  FORMS: A flexible object recognition and modelling system , 1996, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[12]  K. Wakimoto,et al.  Efficient and Effective Querying by Image Content , 1994 .

[13]  Edwin R. Hancock,et al.  Computing approximate tree edit distance using relaxation labeling , 2003, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[14]  Philip N. Klein,et al.  Alignment-Based Recognition of Shape Outlines , 2001, IWVF.

[15]  Ronen Basri,et al.  Determining the similarity of deformable shapes , 1998, Vision Research.

[16]  Ali Shokoufandeh,et al.  Shock Graphs and Shape Matching , 1998, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[17]  Kaleem Siddiqi,et al.  Matching Hierarchical Structures Using Association Graphs , 1998, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[18]  I. Biederman,et al.  Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Jon Louis Bentley,et al.  Data Structures for Range Searching , 1979, CSUR.

[20]  Philip N. Klein,et al.  Recognition of Shapes by Editing Shock Graphs , 2001, ICCV.

[21]  Rama Chellappa,et al.  Classification of Partial 2-D Shapes Using Fourier Descriptors , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[22]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Shape contexts enable efficient retrieval of similar shapes , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR 2001.

[23]  Ehud Rivlin,et al.  Local Invariants For Recognition , 1995, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[24]  Timothy F. Cootes,et al.  Automatic Interpretation and Coding of Face Images Using Flexible Models , 1997, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[25]  J. van Leeuwen,et al.  Graph Based Representations in Pattern Recognition , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[26]  Benjamin B. Kimia,et al.  Symmetry-Based Indexing of Image Databases , 1998, J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent..

[27]  Ricardo A. Baeza-Yates,et al.  Searching in metric spaces , 2001, CSUR.

[28]  Philip N. Klein,et al.  Shape matching using edit-distance: an implementation , 2001, SODA '01.

[29]  Benjamin B. Kimia,et al.  On the Local Form and Transitions of Symmetry Sets, Medial Axes, and Shocks , 2004, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[30]  Ronen Basri,et al.  Recognition by prototypes , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[31]  Laurent Younes,et al.  Computable Elastic Distances Between Shapes , 1998, SIAM J. Appl. Math..

[32]  Tyng-Luh Liu,et al.  Approximate tree matching and shape similarity , 1999, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[33]  Vittorio Castelli,et al.  Image Databases: Search and Retrieval of Digital Imagery , 2002 .

[34]  Peter N. Yianilos,et al.  Data structures and algorithms for nearest neighbor search in general metric spaces , 1993, SODA '93.

[35]  Sergey Brin,et al.  Near Neighbor Search in Large Metric Spaces , 1995, VLDB.