Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Segmentation
Sree Ramya s.
P.
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
Email: {rmalladi.ram.jjrodrig}@email.arizona.edu
planetary science
segmented using a variety of features such as texture, shading,
shape and edges. It is easier to compute these features for rock
superpixels rather than every pixel in the image. A superpixel
is a group of spatially coherent pixels that form a meaningful
homogeneous region, usually belonging to the same object. In this
paper, we perform a comparative study of some of the current
superpixel algorithms on rock images with regard to their ability
to adhere to image boundaries, their speed, and their impact
on rock segmentation performance. Also, we propose a new and
very simple superpixel algorithm, Superpixels Using Morphology
(SUM), which permutes a watershed transformation approach to
efficiently generate superpixels. We show that SUM achieves a
performance comparable to the recent superpixel algorithms on
the rock images.
Index Terms-morphology, watershed segmentation, area clos
ing, superpixels, rock particles.
I. INTRODUCTION
Detection and segmentation of rock particles IS Important
in order to measure the size distribution of rock particles
in mining processes to monitor the blasting quality, optimize
the blast design, and reduce costs and environmental impact.
Also, rock shape, weathering, and dispersion carry important
information about environmental characteristics and need to
be identified for efficient route planning in planetary science.
Superpixel segmentation is an attempt to capture the low-level
details in image by grouping the pixels such that they pro
vide spatial support for extracting features. Superpixels show
benefit in applications such as object tracking [1], detection
[2], segmentation [3], depth estimation [4] and object-based
compression.
Rock image segmentation can be thought of as a two
step process. First, superpixels are computed, and then a
region merging scheme is used to merge the superpixels into
a final segmentation. In this paper, we focus on computing
superpixels. The superpixels computed for the rock images
are expected to have the following properties:
1) Superpixel boundaries should accurately represent, the
edges of the rocks.
2) A superpixel should not include portions of more than
one rock. (Because post-processing is expected to in
clude a merging step, it is easier to recover from
oversegmentation than undersegmentation.)
3) The technique for computing superpixels should be
computationally simple and memory efficient.
145
SSIAI2014
Fig. I. (a) Original image. (b) Morphological gradient image (inverted) with a 3 x 3 square. (c) Closing of gradient magnitude image (inverted) with a disk
(r = 10). (d) Area closing of gradient magnitude image (inverted) (0:
100). (e) Watershed lines obtained from image (c) superimposed onto original image.
(f) Watershed lines obtained from image (d) superimposed onto original image.
=
A. Image Gradient
where,
gradb(f)
(f
EB
b) - (f e b),
(1)
BBe,a =
{X
C. Watershed Segmentation
The watershed transformation [9] is a popular segmentation
algorithm, which divides the gray-level image into regions
that are each associated with one local minimum. Consider
the gray-level image as a topographic map. For each regional
minimum of this map, define a catchment basin (i.e., a
region) as all those points whose steepest-slope paths reach
this minimum. The watershed lines are then defined as the
closed one-pixel-thick crest lines that separate the adjacent
catchment basins. Due to numerous local minima present
within an image, applying watershed segmentation directly
to the image ends up in extreme over-segmentation. We
apply the watershed segmentation algorithm to the area-closed
gradient image to obtain the desired superpixels. Fig. 1(0
shows the watershed lines obtained by applying the watershed
segmentation algorithm to the area-closed gradient image in
Fig. led), superimposed onto the original image.
III.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
146
TABLE
# of
Segments
-TP
-sue
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-ERS
" 'SUM
-Nellts
500
1()()()
1500
2()()()
Number of Segments
2500
u=
L
i=l
min{lsjl-lsjngil,lsjngil}-M
{SjICISjngil)",}
(3)
B. Boundary Recall ()
C.
TP
TP+FN
(4)
Experiments
The recent superpixel algorithms [5], [12], [13], [14] and the
proposed method SUM were tested on a set of 10 rock images.
Each image has size 480 x 640 pixels. A careful manual
segmentation of the rock images was considered as ground
truth for all subsequent analysis. On average, each rock image
has around 50 to 100 ground truth rock regions. The dataset of
rock images includes rocks with varying illumination, shading,
shape, and texture. The goal of the superpixel algorithms
should be to produce a minimum number of superpixels with
good segmentation quality (low under-segmentation error and
high boundary recall). The run time of the algorithms is also
an important factor.
We used open source implementations of the superpixel
algorithms available online. The original implementation of
the Ncuts algorithm resizes the image to 160 x 160 for faster
compution. We disable the image resizing poperty of Ncuts
algorithm and keep the size of the image fixed for all the
methods to have a fair comparison. The number of superpixels
is the only parameter used by the turbopixel algorithm. SLIC
has two parameters: region size (to produce uniformly sized
Turbo
ERS
SLIC
Ncuts
SUM
25
14.3 10
2.045
0.650
158.349
0.020
500
39. 1 10
2.9 10
1.699
1802.600
0.024
1000
4 1.20 1
3.64 1
1.73 1
0.027
2500
44.036
5.74 1
1.960
0.044
CONCLUSION
147
(d)
(e)
(f)
Fig. 3. (a) Original image. Results of the automated algorithms: (b) Ncuts, (c) turbopixels, (d) SLIC, (e) ERS, (f) SUM (proposed method).
[I] S. Wang, H. Lu, L. Yang, and M-H. Yang, "Superpixel tracking", in Proc.
IEEE Int. Con! Computer Vision, pp. 1323-1330,201l.
[2] B. Fulkerson, A. Vedaldi, and S. Soatto, "Class segmentation and object
localization with superpixel neighborhoods." in Proc. IEEE Int. COIll
Computer Vision, pp. 670-677,2009.
[3] p. Mehrani and O. Veksler, "Saliency segmentation based on leaming
and graph cut refinement." in Proc. British Machine Vision COIif., pp.
110.1-110.12,2010.
[4] B. Micusfk and J. Kosecka, "Multi-view superpixel stereo in urban
environments," Int. J. Computer Vision vol. 89,no. I,pp. 106-119,Aug.
2010.
[5] J. Shi and J. Malik, "Normalized Cuts and [mage Segmentation," IEEE
Trans. Pattern. Anal. and Mach. buell., vol. 22,no. 8,pp. 888-905,Aug.
2000.
[6] P. F. Felzenszwalb and D. P. Huttenlocher, "Efficient graph-based image
segmentation;' Int'l. J. Computer Vision vol. 59,no. 2,pp. 167-181,Sep.
2004.
[7] D. Comaniciu and P. Meer, "Mean shift: A robust approach toward feature
space analysis;' IEEE Trans. Pattern. Anal. Mach. buell., vol. 24, no. 5,
pp. 603-619,May 2002.
148
[8] A. Vedaldi and S. Soatto, "Quick shift and kernel methods for mode
seeking;' in Proc. European COIif. Computer Vision, pp. 705-718,2008.
[9] L. Vincent and P. SoilIe, "Watersheds in digital spaces: an efficient
algorithm based on immersion simulations," IEEE Trans. Pattern. Anal.
Mach. Intell., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 593-598,Jun. 1991.
[10] O. Veksler, Y. Boykov, and P. Mehrani, "Superpixels and supervoxels in
an energy optimization framework," in Proc. European COlif. Computer
Vision, pp. 211-224,2010.
[II] M. Van den Bergh, X. Boix, G. Roig, B. de Capitani, and L. Van
Gool, "SEEDS: superpixels extracted via energy-driven sampling, in Proc.
European COIll Computer Vision, pp. 213-26,2012.
[12] A. Levinshtein, A. Stere, K. N. Kutulakos, D. J. Dickinson, and K.
Siddiqi, "Turbopixels: Fast superpixels using geometric flows," IEEE
Trans. Pattern. Anal. Mach. buell., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 2290-2297,Dec.
2009.
[13] R. Achanta, A. Shaji, A. Lucchi, P. Fua, and S. Susstrunk, "SLIC
superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods," IEEE Trans.
Pattern. Anal. Mach. buell., vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2274-2282,Nov. 2012.
[14] M. Y. Liu, O. Tuzel, S. Ramalingam, and R. Chellappa, "Entropy-rate