Abstract

Graph matching (GM) is a fundamental problem in computer science, and it plays a central role to solve correspondence problems in computer vision. GM problems that incorporate pairwise constraints can be formulated as a quadratic assignment problem (QAP). Although widely used, solving the correspondence problem through GM has two main limitations: (1) the QAP is NP-hard and difficult to approximate; (2) GM algorithms do not incorporate geometric constraints between nodes that are natural in computer vision problems. To address aforementioned problems, this paper proposes factorized graph matching (FGM). FGM factorizes the large pairwise affinity matrix into smaller matrices that encode the local structure of each graph and the pairwise affinity between edges. Four are the benefits that follow from this factorization: (1) There is no need to compute the costly (in space and time) pairwise affinity matrix; (2) The factorization allows the use of a path-following optimization algorithm, that leads to improved optimization strategies and matching performance; (3) Given the factorization, it becomes straight-forward to incorporate geometric transformations (rigid and non-rigid) to the GM problem. (4) Using a matrix formulation for the GM problem and the factorization, it is easy to reveal commonalities and differences between different GM methods. The factorization also provides a clean connection with other matching algorithms such as iterative closest point; Experimental results on synthetic and real databases illustrate how FGM outperforms state-of-the-art algorithms for GM. The code is available at http://humansensing.cs.cmu.edu/fgm.

Highlights

  • Establishing correspondence between two sets of visual features is the key of many computer vision tasks, such as object tracking [1], structure-from-motion [2], and image classification [3]

  • Beyond the unification of graph matching (GM) methods, we show that a close relation exists between GM and iterative closest point (ICP) objectives

  • In order to escape from this phenomenon, we keep increasing the global score of Jgm(X) during the optimization by discarding the bad temporary solution that worsens the score of Jgm(X) and computing an alternative one by applying one step of Frank-Wolfe’s algorithm (FW) for optimizing Jgm(X)

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Establishing correspondence between two sets of visual features is the key of many computer vision tasks, such as object tracking [1], structure-from-motion [2], and image classification [3]. While solving the correspondence between images is still an open problem in computer vision, much progress has been done in the last decades Works such as RANSAC [4] and iterative closest point (ICP) [5] assume that the location of image features are constrained explicitly (e.g., a planar affine transformation) or implicitly (e.g., epipolar ones) by a parametric form. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE form factorization of the pairwise affinity matrix that decouples the local graph structure of the nodes and edge similarities. This factorization is general and can be applied to both undirected and directed graphs. Using the factorization and the matrix formulation, it is very easy to understand the commonalities and differences between GM methods and relate them to other problems like ICP and Markov Random Fields (MRF)

PREVIOUS WORK ON GM
Definition of GM
Advances on GM
Definition of ICP
Advances on ICP
A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK FOR GM
Unification of GM methods
A PATH-FOLLOWING ALGORITHM
Convex and concave relaxation
A path-following strategy
Sub-problem optimization
Other implementation details
Objective function
Optimization
Comparison with ICP
VIII. EXPERIMENTS
Baselines and evaluation metrics
Synthetic dataset
House image dataset
Car and motorbike image dataset
Fish and character shape dataset
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call