Go With The Flow A New Manifold Modeling and Learning

Report
Go With The Flow
A New Manifold Modeling and Learning
Framework for Image Ensembles
Aswin C. Sankaranarayanan
Rice University
Richard G. Baraniuk
Chinmay Hegde
Sriram Nagaraj
Sensor Data Deluge
Concise Models
• Efficient processing / compression requires
concise representation
• Sparsity of an individual image
pixels
large
wavelet
coefficients
(blue = 0)
Concise Models
• Efficient processing / compression requires
concise representation
• Our interest in this talk:
Collections of images
Concise Models
• Our interest in this talk:
Collections of image
parameterized by q \in Q
– translations of an object
q: x-offset and y-offset
– wedgelets
q: orientation and offset
– rotations of a 3D object
q: pitch, roll, yaw
Concise Models
• Our interest in this talk:
Collections of image
parameterized by q \in Q
– translations of an object
q: x-offset and y-offset
– wedgelets
q: orientation and offset
– rotations of a 3D object
q: pitch, roll, yaw
• Image articulation manifold
Image Articulation Manifold
• N-pixel images:
• K-dimensional
articulation space
• Then
is a K-dimensional manifold
in the ambient space
• Very concise model
articulation parameter space
Smooth IAMs
• N-pixel images:
• Local isometry:
image distance
parameter space distance
• Linear tangent spaces
are close approximation
locally
articulation parameter space
Smooth IAMs
• N-pixel images:
• Local isometry:
image distance
parameter space distance
• Linear tangent spaces
are close approximation
locally
articulation parameter space
Ex: Manifold Learning
LLE
ISOMAP
LE
HE
Diff. Geo …
• K=1
rotation
Ex: Manifold Learning
• K=2
rotation and scale
Theory/Practice Disconnect:
Smoothness
• Practical image manifolds are not smooth!
• If images have sharp edges, then manifold is
everywhere non-differentiable [Donoho and Grimes]
Tangent approximations ?
Isometry ?
Theory/Practice Disconnect:
Smoothness
• Practical image manifolds are not smooth!
• If images have sharp edges, then manifold is
everywhere non-differentiable [Donoho and Grimes]
Tangent approximations ?
Isometry ?
Failure of Tangent Plane Approx.
• Ex: cross-fading when synthesizing / interpolating
images that should lie on manifold
Input
Image
Input
Image
Geodesic
Linear path
Failure of Local Isometry
• Ex: translation
manifold
all blue images
are equidistant
from the red image
3.5
• Local isometry
– satisfied only when sampling is
dense
Euclidean distance
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
20
40
60
Translation q in [px]
80
100
Tools for manifold processing
Algebraic manifolds
Data manifolds
Geodesics, exponential
maps, log-maps,
Riemannian metrics, Karcher
means, …
LLE, kNN graphs
Smooth diff manifold
Point cloud model
Beyond point cloud model for image
manifolds
The concept of
Transport operators
I q  f  I q ref
Example
I q ( x )  I q ref ( f ( x ))
Example: Translation
• 2D Translation manifold
I1
I0
I 1 ( x )  I 0 ( x   1 ),
f1 ( x )  x   1
barring boundary related issues
• Set of all transport operators = R
2
• Beyond a point cloud model
– Action of the articulation is more accurate and meaningful
Optical Flow
• Generalizing this idea: Pixel correspondances
I1 and I2
• Idea:
OF
from I1 to I2
OF between two images is a natural
and accurate transport operator
(Figures from Ce Liu’s optical flow page)
Optical Flow Transport
• Consider a reference image
and a K-dimensional articulation
• Collect optical flows from
to all images reachable by a
K-dimensional articulation
IAM
Iq0
I q1
Iq2
q0
q1
Articulations
q2
Optical Flow Transport
• Consider a reference image
and a K-dimensional articulation
• Collect optical flows from
to all images reachable by a
K-dimensional articulation
• Theorem: Collection of OFs is a
smooth, K-dimensional manifold
(even if IAM is not smooth)
OFM at I q
0
IAM
Iq0
I q1
Iq2
q0
q1
Articulations
q2
OFM is Smooth
Pixel intensity
at 3 points
Intensity
I(θ)
Intensity
q   60 
Optical
in pixels
vx v(θ)
flow
Op. flow
q 0  0
q  30 
q  60 
200
150
100
50
0
Flow
(nearly linear)
q   30 
(Rotation)
20
-80
-60
-40
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
-20
0
20
Articulation q in []
40
60
80
Articulation q in []
10
0
-10
-20
Articulation θ in [⁰]
Main results
• Local model at each I q
OFM at I q
0
0
• Each point on the OFM
defines a transport operator
– Each transport operator maps I q
to one of its neighbors
I q1
• For a large class of
articulations, OFMs are
smooth and locally
isometric
– Traditional manifold processing
techniques work on OFMs
IAM
Iq0
0
Iq2
q0
q1
Articulations
q2
Linking it all together
Nonlinear dim.
reduction
OFM at I
q0
e0
e1
IAM
Iq0
I q1
Iq2
Articulations
The non-differentiablity does not
dissappear --- it is embedded in
the mapping from OFM to the IAM.
However, this is a known map
q0
q1
e2
q2
{ I ref , f q }  I q such that
I q ( x )  I ref ( f q ( x ))
The Story So Far…
Tangent space at
IAM
Iq0
I q1
OFM at I q
Iq0
Iq2
Articulations
IAM
Iq0
I q1
q0
q1
0
Iq2
q0
q2
q1
Articulations
q2
Input Image
IAM
OFM
Input Image
Geodesic
Linear path
OFM Synthesis
Manifold Learning
2D rotations
ISOMAP embedding error
for OFM and IAM
Reference
image
Manifold Learning
2D rotations
Embedding of OFM
Two-dimensional Isomap embedding (with neighborhood graph).
5
4
Reference
image
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
OFM Manifold Learning
Data
196 images of two
bears moving linearly
and independently
Task
Find low-dimensional
embedding
IAM
OFM
OFM ML + Parameter Estimation
Data
196 images of
a cup moving
on a plane
Task 1
Find low-dimensional
embedding
Task 2
Parameter estimation
for new images
(tracing an “R”)
IAM
OFM
Karcher Mean
• Point on the manifold such that the sum of
geodesic distances to every other point is minimized
• Important concept in nonlinear data modeling,
compression, shape analysis
[Srivastava et al]
10 images
from an IAM
ground truth KM
OFM KM
linear KM
Manifold Charting
• Goal: build a generative model for an entire
IAM/OFM based on a small number of base images
• Ex: cube rotating about axis. All cube images can be
representing using 4 reference images + OFMs
IAM
Optimal
charting
q   180 
q   90 
q  0
q  90 
Greedy
charting
• Many applications
– selection of target templates for classification
– “next-view” selection for adaptive sensing applications
q  180 
Summary
• IAMs a useful concise model for many image
processing problems involving image collections
and multiple sensors/viewpoints
• But practical IAMs are non-differentiable
– IAM-based algorithms have not lived up to their promise
• Optical flow manifolds (OFMs)
– smooth even when IAM is not
– OFM ~ nonlinear tangent space
– support accurate image synthesis, learning, charting, …
• Barely discussed here: OF enables the safe
extension of differential geometry concepts
– Log/Exp maps, Karcher mean, parallel transport, …
Open Questions
• Our treatment is specific to
image manifolds under
brightness constancy
• What are the natural transport operators for
other data manifolds?
dsp.rice.edu
Related Work
• Analytic transport operators
– transport operator has group structure
[Xiao and Rao
07][Culpepper and Olshausen 09] [Miller and Younes 01] [Tuzel et al 08]
– non-linear analytics [Dollar et al 06]
– spatio-temporal manifolds [Li and Chellappa 10]
– shape manifolds [Klassen et al 04]
• Analytic approach limited to a small class of standard
image transformations
(ex: affine transformations, Lie groups)
• In contrast, OFM approach works reliably with
real-world image samples (point clouds) and
broader class of transformations
Limitations
• Brightness constancy
– Optical flow is no longer meaningful
• Occlusion
– Undefined pixel flow in theory, arbitrary flow estimates in
practice
– Heuristics to deal with it
• Changing backgrounds etc.
– Transport operator assumption too strict
– Sparse correspondences ?
Open Questions
• Theorem:
random measurements
stably embed a
K-dim manifold
whp [B, Wakin, FOCM ’08]
• Q: Is there an analogous
result for OFMs?
Image Articulation Manifold
• Linear tangent space at
is K-dimensional
Tangent space at
– provides a mechanism to
transport along manifold
– problem: since manifold is
non-differentiable, tangent
approximation is poor
Iq0
IAM
Iq0
I q1
Iq2
q0
• Our goal: replace tangent space
with new transport operator
that respects the nonlinearity
of the imaging process
q1
Articulations
q2
OFM Implementation details
Reference Image
Pairwise distances and embedding
100
4
200
300
2
400
0
0.5
100
200
300
400
Residual variance
-2
0.4
-4
0.3
-5
0.2
0.1
0
0
2
4
6
8
Isomap dimensionality
10
0
5
Flow Embedding
100
200
300
400
100
200
300
400
4
0.5
Residual variance
2
0.4
0
0.3
0.2
-2
0.1
0
0
2
4
6
8
Isomap dimensionality
10
-4
-5
0
5
Occlusion
• Detect occlusion using forward-backward flow
reasoning
Occluded
• Remove occluded pixel computations
• Heuristic --- formal occlusion handling is hard
History of Optical Flow
• Dark ages (<1985)
– special cases solved
– LBC an under-determined set of linear equations
• Horn and Schunk (1985)
– Regularization term: smoothness prior on the flow
• Brox et al (2005)
– shows that linearization of brightness constancy (BC) is
a bad assumption
– develops optimization framework to handle BC directly
• Brox et al (2010), Black et al (2010), Liu et al
(2010)
– practical systems with reliable code

similar documents