Estimation and choice of neighbors in spatial-interaction models of images

Some aspects of statistical inference for a class of spatial-interaction models for finite images are presented: primarily the simultaneous autoregressive (SAR) models and conditional Markov (CM) models. Each of these models is characterized by a set of neighbors, a set of coefficients, and a noise sequence of specified characteristics. We are concerned with two problems: the estimation of the unknown parameters in both SAR and CM models and the choice of an appropriate model from a class of such competing models. Assuming Gaussian-distributed variables, we discuss maximum likelihood (ML) estimation methods. In general, the ML scheme leads to nonlinear optimization problems. To avoid excessive computation, an iterative scheme is given for SAR models, which gives approximate ML estimates in the Gaussian case and reasonably good estimates in some non-Gaussian situations as well. Likewise, for CM models, an easily computable consistent estimate is given. The asymptotic mean-squared error (mse) of this estimate for a four-neighbor CM model is shown tn be substantially less than the mse of the popular coding estimate. Asymptotically consistent decision rules are given for choosing an appropriate SAR or CM model. The usefulness of the estimation scheme and the decision rule for the choice of neighbors is illustrated by using synthetic patterns. Synthetic patterns obeying known SAR and CM models are generated, and the models corresponding to true and several competing neighbor sets are fitted. The estimation scheme yields estimates close to the parameters of the true models, and the decision rule for the choice of neighbors picks up the true model from the class of competing models.

[1]  P. Whittle ON STATIONARY PROCESSES IN THE PLANE , 1954 .

[2]  D. Lindley The Use of Prior Probability Distributions in Statistical Inference and Decisions , 1961 .

[3]  John W. Woods,et al.  Two-dimensional discrete Markovian fields , 1972, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[4]  J. Besag,et al.  On the estimation and testing of spatial interaction in Gaussian lattice processes , 1975 .

[5]  K. Ord Estimation Methods for Models of Spatial Interaction , 1975 .

[6]  J. Woods Markov image modeling , 1976 .

[7]  W. Larimore,et al.  Statistical inference on stationary random fields , 1977, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[8]  R. Kashyap A Bayesian comparison of different classes of dynamic models using empirical data , 1977 .

[9]  Rangasami L. Kashyap,et al.  Image data compression using autoregressive time series models , 1979, Pattern Recognit..

[10]  R. Kashyap Univariate and multivariate random field models for images , 1980 .

[11]  Julius T. Tou,et al.  Pictorial feature extraction and recognition via image modeling , 1980 .

[12]  R. Kashyap Inconsistency of the AIC rule for estimating the order of autoregressive models , 1980 .

[13]  M. Ekstrom,et al.  Multidimensional spectral factorization and unilateral autoregressive models , 1980 .

[14]  M. Hassner,et al.  The use of Markov Random Fields as models of texture , 1980 .

[15]  Ramalingam Chellappa,et al.  Decision rules for choice of neighbors in random field models of images , 1981 .

[16]  A.K. Jain,et al.  Advances in mathematical models for image processing , 1981, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[17]  R. Chellappa,et al.  Digital image restoration using spatial interaction models , 1982 .

[18]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Markov Random Field Texture Models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.