1 / 19

Silhouette-based Object Phenotype Recognition using 3D Shape Priors

Silhouette-based Object Phenotype Recognition using 3D Shape Priors. Yu Chen 1 Tae- Kyun Kim 2 Roberto Cipolla 1 University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 1 Imperial College, London, UK 2. Problem Description. Task: To identify the phenotype class of deformable objects.

pilar
Download Presentation

Silhouette-based Object Phenotype Recognition using 3D Shape Priors

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Silhouette-based Object Phenotype Recognition using 3D Shape Priors Yu Chen1 Tae-Kyun Kim2 Roberto Cipolla1 University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK1 Imperial College, London, UK2

  2. Problem Description • Task: To identify the phenotype class of deformable objects. • Given a gallery of canonical-posed silhouettes in different phenotype classes. • Can we find out ?

  3. Problem Description • Motivation: • Pose recognition is widely investigated; • Phenotype recognition is somehow overlooked; • Applications? • Difficulty: • Pose and camera viewpoint variations are more dominant than the phenotype variation.

  4. Problem Description • 2D approaches hardly work in this case. • Our strategy: make use of the 3D shape prior of deformable objects. • Shall we use a purely generative approach? • No! Too expensive to perform for a recognition task!

  5. Solution: Two-Stage Model • Main Ideas: Discriminative + Generative • Two stages: • Hypothesising • Discriminative; • Using random forests; • Shape Synthesis and Verification • Generative; • Synthesising 3D shapes using shape priors; • Silhouette verification. • Recognition by a model selection process.

  6. Parameter Hypothesizing • Use 3 RFs to quickly hypothesize phenotype, pose, and camera parameters. • Learned on synthetic silhouettes generated by the shape priors. FS: Phenotype classifier (canonical pose) FA: Pose classifier FC: Camera pose classifier

  7. Examples of Tree Classifiers The phenotype classifier The pose classifier

  8. Training RF Classifiers • Random Features: • Rectangle pairs with random sizes and locations. • Difference of mean intensity values [Shotton et al. 09] • Feature error compensation for phenotype classifier; • Criteria Function: • Similarity-aware diversity index.

  9. Shape Synthesis and Verification • Generate 3D shapes V • From candidate parameters given by RFs. • Use GPLVM shape priors [Chen et al.’10]. • Compare the projection of V with the query silhouette Sq. • Oriented Chamfer matching (OCM). [Stenger et al’03]

  10. Experiments • Testing data: • Manually segmented silhouettes; • Current Datasets • Human jumping jack • (13 instances, 170 images); • Human walking • (16 instances, 184 images); • Shark swimming • (13 instances, 168 images). • Phenotype Categorisation

  11. Comparative Approaches: • Learn a single RF phenotype classifier; • Histogram of Shape Context (HoSC) • [Agarwal and Triggs, 2006] • Inner-Distance Shape Context (IDSC) • [Ling and Jacob, 2007] • 2D Oriented Chamfer matching (OCM) • [Stenger et al. 2006] • Mixture of Experts for the shape reconstruction • [Sigal et al. 2007]. • Modified into a recognition algorithm

  12. Comparative Approaches: • Internal comparisons: • Proposed method with both feature error modelling and similarity-aware criteria function (G+D); • Proposed method w.o feature error modelling (G+D–E); • Proposed method w.o similarity-aware criteria function (G+D–S) • Using standard diversity index instead.

  13. Recognition Performance • Cross-validation by splitting the dataset instances. • 5 phenotype categories for every test. • Selecting one instance from each category.

  14. Recognition Performance • How the parameters of RFs affect the performance? • Max Tree Depth dmax • Tree Number NT

  15. Qualitative Results of SVR Left: Input image/silhouette; Centre: Using RF-hypothesizes; Right: Using the optimisation-based approach.

  16. Qualitative Results of SVR

  17. Take-Home Messages • Phenotype recognition is difficult but still possible; • Combing discriminative and generative cues can greatly speed up the inference; • A divide-and-conquer strategy can help improve the recognition rate.

  18. Future Work • Explore the application on more complicated poses and more categories. • E.g. Boxing, gardening, other sports, etc. • Data collection; • Automate the silhouette extraction. • E.g. Kinect.

  19. The End Questions?

More Related