On handling uncertainty in the fundamental matrix for scene and motion adaptive pose recovery

The estimation of the fundamental matrix is the key step in feature-based camera ego-motion estimation for applications in scene modeling and vehicle navigation. In this paper, we present a new method of analyzing and further reducing the risk in the fundamental matrix due to the choice of a particular feature detector, the choice of the matching algorithm, the motion model, iterative hypothesis generation and verification paradigms. Our scheme makes use of model-selection theory to guide the switch to optimal methods for fundamental matrix estimation within the hypothesis-and-test architecture. We demonstrate our proposed method for vision-based robot localization in large-scale environments where the environment is constantly changing and navigation within the environment is unpredictable.

[1]  Kenichi Kanatani,et al.  Uncertainty modeling and model selection for geometric inference , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[2]  Thomas S. Huang,et al.  Motion and structure from feature correspondences: a review , 1994, Proc. IEEE.

[3]  Nageswara S. V. Rao,et al.  On Fusers that Perform Better than Best Sensor , 2001, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[4]  Cordelia Schmid,et al.  Scale & Affine Invariant Interest Point Detectors , 2004, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[5]  David Nistér,et al.  An efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem , 2003, 2003 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2003. Proceedings..

[6]  A. Koschan,et al.  COMPARISON AND EVALUATION OF FEATURE POINT DETECTORS , 2006 .

[7]  Alexander Zelinsky,et al.  Fast Radial Symmetry for Detecting Points of Interest , 2003, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[8]  K. Takaya.  Feature Point Correspondence of Stereo Images by Monogenic Phase , 2007, 2007 IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing.

[9]  H. Bozdogan,et al.  MULTI-SAMPLE CLUSTER ANALYSIS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO MULTIPLE COMPARISON PROCEDURES , 1986 .

[10]  N. H. C. Yung,et al.  Curvature scale space corner detector with adaptive threshold and dynamic region of support , 2004, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004..

[11]  Christopher G. Harris,et al.  A Combined Corner and Edge Detector , 1988, Alvey Vision Conference.

[12]  Andrew Zisserman,et al.  MLESAC: A New Robust Estimator with Application to Estimating Image Geometry , 2000, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[13]  Peter Kovesi,et al.  Image Features from Phase Congruency , 1995 .

[14]  P. Torr.  Geometric motion segmentation and model selection , 1998, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[15]  Richard I. Hartley,et al.  In Defense of the Eight-Point Algorithm , 1997, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[16]  David Nister,et al.  Recent developments on direct relative orientation , 2006 .

[17]  B. S. Manjunath,et al.  A Mathematical Comparison of Point Detectors , 2004, 2004 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop.

[18]  H. Bozdogan,et al.  Akaike's Information Criterion and Recent Developments in Information Complexity. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[19]  Bernhard P. Wrobel,et al.  Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision , 2001 .

[20]  Zhengyou Zhang,et al.  Determining the Epipolar Geometry and its Uncertainty: A Review , 1998, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[21]  G LoweDavid,et al.  Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints , 2004 .