Upload
mele
View
38
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Learning to Combine Bottom-Up and Top-Down Segmentation. Anat Levin and Yair Weiss School of CS&Eng, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Bottom-up segmentation. Bottom-up approaches: Use low level cues to group similar pixels. Malik et al, 2000 Sharon et al, 2001 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Learning to Combine Bottom-Up and Top-Down Segmentation
Anat Levin and Yair Weiss
School of CS&Eng,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Bottom-up segmentation
• Malik et al, 2000 • Sharon et al, 2001•Comaniciu and Meer, 2002•…
Bottom-up approaches: Use low level cues to group similar pixels
Bottom-up segmentation is ill posed
Some segmentation example (maybe horses from Eran’s paper)
Many possible segmentation are equally good based on low level cues alone.
images from Borenstein and Ullman 02
Top-down segmentation •Class-specific, top-down segmentation (Borenstein & Ullman Eccv02)
•Winn and Jojic 05
•Leibe et al 04
•Yuille and Hallinan 02.
•Liu and Sclaroff 01
•Yu and Shi 03
Combining top-down and bottom-up segmentation
Find a segmentation:
1. Similar to the top-down model
2. Aligns with image edges
+
Previous approaches
• Borenstein et al 04 Combining top-down and bottom up segmentation.
• Tu et al ICCV03 Image parsing: segmentation, detection, and recognition.
• Kumar et al CVPR05 Obj-Cut.
•Shotton et al ECCV06: TextonBoost
Previous approaches: Train top-down and bottom-up models independentlyindependently
Why learning top-down and bottom-up models simultaneously?
•Large number of freedom degrees in tentacles configuration- requires a complex deformable top down model
•On the other hand: rather uniform colors- low level segmentation is easy
•Learn top-down and bottom-up models simultaneouslysimultaneously
•Reduces at run time to energy minimization with binary labels (graph min cut)
Our approach
Energy model
k
IFkij
kxxjxixjiwIxE ,)()(),();(
Consistency with fragments segmentation
Segmentation alignment with image edges
Energy model
k
IFkij
kxxjxixjiwIxE ,)()(),();(
Segmentation alignment with image edges
Consistency with fragments segmentation
Energy model
k
IFkij
kxxjxixjiwIxE ,)()(),();(
Segmentation alignment with image edges
Resulting min-cut segmentation
Consistency with fragments segmentation
Learning from segmented class images
Training data:Ttt
Ttt xI 11 }{ }{
Goal: Learn fragments for an energy function
Learning energy functions using conditional random fields
t
IxE
tttt
tteIZ
IxP ),;(
);(
1);|(
Theory of CRFs:
•Lafferty et al 2001
•LeCun and Huang 2005
x
IxEt
teIZ ),;();(
CRFs For vision:
•Kumar and Hebert 2003
•Ren et al 2006
•He et al 2004, 2006
•Quattoni et al 2005
•Torralba et al 04
tx
E(x)
tx
E(x)
Minimize energy of true segmentation
Maximize energy of all other configurations
t
IxE
tttt
tteIZ
IxP ),;(
);(
1);|(
Learning energy functions using conditional random fields
“It's not enough to succeed. Others must fail.” –Gore Vidal
Minimize energy of true segmentation
Maximize energy of all other configurations
tx
P(x)
tx
P(x)
t
IxE
tttt
tteIZ
IxP ),;(
);(
1);|(
Learning energy functions using conditional random fields
“It's not enough to succeed. Others must fail.” –Gore Vidal
Differentiating CRFs log-likelihood
Log-likelihood gradients with respect to :
Expected feature response minus observed feature response
ObsIFt
CurrentIFt tktk
xxxx ,
,
k
IFkij
kxxjxixjiwFIxE ,)()(),(),,,;(
Log-likelihood is convex with respect to
Yair- in the original version of this slide I had another equation expressing the expectation as a sum of marginals (see next hidden slide). At least for me, it wasn’t originally clear what this expectation means before I saw the other equation. However, I try to delete un necessary equations..
CRFs cost- evaluating partition function
Derivatives- evaluating marginal probabilities
Use approximate estimations:
•Sampling
•Belief Propagation and Bethe free energy
•Used in this work: Tree reweighted belief propagation and Tree reweighted upper bound (Wainwright et al 03)
Conditional random fields-computational challenges
);(log
tIZ
);|(
ti IrxP
Fragments selection
Candidate fragments pool:
Greedy energy design:
ij
jxixjiwIxE )()(),();(
IFxx ,1 1 IFxx ,2 2
IFxx ,3 3
Fragments selection challenges
Straightforward computation of likelihood improvement is impractical
2000 Fragments
50 Training images
10 Fragments selection iterations
1,000,000 inference operations!
Fragments selection
Fragment with low error on
the training set
First order approximation to log-likelihood gain:
ModelCurrentIFt
ObsIFt tt
xxxx
,,
Fragment not accounted for by the
existing model
Similar idea in different contexts:
•Zhu et al 1997
•Lafferty et al 2004
•McCallum 2003
•Requires a single inference process on the previous iteration energy to evaluate approximations with respect to all fragments
•First order approximation evaluation is linear in the fragment size
First order approximation to log-likelihood gain:
ModelCurrentIFt
ObsIFt tt
xxxx
,,
Fragments selection
Fragments selection- summary
Initialization: Low- level term
For k=1:K
•Run TRBP inference using the previous iteration energy.
•Approximate likelihood gain of candidate fragments
•Add to energy the fragment with maximal gain.
ModelCurrentIFt
ObsIFt tt
xxxx
,,
Training horses model
Training horses model-one fragment
Training horses model-two fragments
Training horses model-three fragments
Results- horses dataset
Results- horses dataset
Fragments number
Mis
lab
eled
pix
els
per
cen
t
Comparable to previous results (Kumar et al, Borenstein et al.) but with far fewer fragments
Results- artificial octopi
Results- cows datasetFrom the TU Darmstadt Database
Results- cows dataset
Fragments number
Mis
lab
eled
pix
els
per
cen
t
Conclusions
•Simultaneously learning top-down and bottom-up segmentation cues.
•Learning formulated as estimation in Conditional Random Fields
•Novel, efficient fragments selection algorithm
•Algorithm achieves state of the art performance with a significantly smaller number of fragments