Using matching distance in size theory: A survey

In this survey we illustrate how the matching distance between reduced size functions can be applied for shape comparison. We assume that each shape can be thought of as a compact connected manifold with a real continuous function defined on it, that is a pair (ℳ︁,φ : ℳ︁ → ℝ), called size pair. In some sense, the function φ focuses on the properties and the invariance of the problem at hand. In this context, matching two size pairs (ℳ︁, φ) and (𝒩, ψ) means looking for a homeomorphism between ℳ︁ and 𝒩 that minimizes the difference of values taken by φ and ψ on the two manifolds. Measuring the dissimilarity between two shapes amounts to the difficult task of computing the value δ = inff maxP∈ℳ︁ |φ(P) − ψ(f(P))|, where f varies among all the homeomorphisms from ℳ︁ to 𝒩. From another point of view, shapes can be described by reduced size functions associated with size pairs. The matching distance between reduced size functions allows for a robust to perturbations comparison of shapes. The link between reduced size functions and the dissimilarity measure δ is established by a theorem, stating that the matching distance provides an easily computable lower bound for δ. Throughout this paper we illustrate this approach to shape comparison by means of examples and experiments. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Imaging Syst Technol, 16, 154–161, 2006

[1]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  Applications of Invariance in Computer Vision , 1993, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

[3]  Pietro Donatini,et al.  Natural pseudodistances between closed manifolds , 2004 .

[4]  Remco C. Veltkamp,et al.  State of the Art in Shape Matching , 2001, Principles of Visual Information Retrieval.

[5]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  Natural Pseudo-Distance and Optimal Matching between Reduced Size Functions , 2008, ArXiv.

[6]  Shengrui Wang,et al.  Sign Language Recognition using Moment-Based Size Functions , 1999 .

[7]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  The Use of Size Functions for Comparison of Shapes Through Differential Invariants , 2004, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision.

[8]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  Size theory as a topological tool for computer vision , 1999 .

[9]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  Size functions as complete invariants for image recognition , 2002, SPIE Optics + Photonics.

[10]  P. Frosini,et al.  Size homotopy groups for computation of natural size distances , 1999 .

[11]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  Point Selection: A New Comparison Scheme for Size Functions (With an Application to Monogram Recognition) , 1998, ACCV.

[12]  J. Craggs Applied Mathematical Sciences , 1973 .

[13]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  Size Functions and Formal Series , 2001, Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing.

[14]  Pietro Donatini,et al.  Archives of Inequalities and Applications xx (200x)xxx-xxx LOWER BOUNDS FOR NATURAL PSEUDODISTANCES VIA SIZE FUNCTIONS , 2004 .

[15]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  Sketch Up: Towards Qualitative Shape Data Management , 1998, ACCV.

[16]  Massimo Ferri,et al.  Size Functions for Image Retrieval: A Demonstrator on Randomly Generated Curves , 2002, CIVR.

[17]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  New methods for reducing size graphs , 1999, Int. J. Comput. Math..

[18]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  Size functions for signature recognition , 1998, Optics & Photonics.

[19]  Alon Itai,et al.  Geometry Helps in Bottleneck Matching and Related Problems , 2001, Algorithmica.

[20]  Patrizio Frosini,et al.  On the use of size functions for shape analysis , 1993, [1993] Proceedings IEEE Workshop on Qualitative Vision.

[21]  Alessandro Verri,et al.  Invariant Size Functions , 1993, Applications of Invariance in Computer Vision.

[22]  Massimo Ferri,et al.  Leukocyte classifications by size functions , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision.

[23]  坂上 貴之 書評 Computational Homology , 2005 .