Superpixels Generating from the Pixel-based K-Means Clustering

Transcription

1 Superpixels Generating from the Pixel-based K-Means Clustering Shang-Chia Wei, Tso-Jung Yen Institute of Statistical Science Academia Sinica Taipei, Taiwan 11529, R.O.C. ABSTRACT: Image segmentation is a basic but important preprocessing to image recognition in computer vision applications. In this paper, we propose a pixel-based k-means (PKM) clustering to generate superpixels, which comprise many pixels with similar colors and neighbor positions. In contrast with conventional center-based clustering, the PKM method traces several nearer clustering centers for a pixel in advance, and then the pixel find the highest similar colors as its clustering center. Besides, we adopt the regional clustering of the SLIC (Simple Linear Iterative Clustering) in the PKM method to improve the performance of image segmentations. The MSRC dataset is used to quantitatively compare the PKM with the SLIC performances, such as under-segmentation errors, boundary recall, detection precision, and computation efficiency. Keywords: Superpixels, Image Segmentation, Clustering, Pixel-based K-means Received: 10 June 2015, Revised 9 July 2015, Accepted 14 July DLINE. All Rights Reserved 1. Introduction Superpixel representation is a kind of dimensionality reduction technique in computer vision applications. The technique forms significant blocks of image pixels across row or column space. Thus the technique supports feature selection or saliency extraction for an image or a video [1]-[4]. Since a region of an image has color and location similarities, the region, called a superpixel is displayed by a single color, averaging out the colors in the region. In comparison the original image with superpixel image, we expect that there are a few differences, which is not influenced on subsequent image processing algorithms, such as salient detection, tracking, etc. Superpixel algorithm is able to divide an image into few pieces (viz. under-segmentation) or redundant pieces (viz. oversegmentation). An image with under-segmentation maybe causes noises like textures, shadows, or lighting conditions occurring in some image segments. In contrast, images with appropriate over-segmentation perhaps preserve boundaries of salient features, and then eliminate noise, improve inner object definition, or smooth image lighting for explicit saliency detection. Thus, an excellent superpixel algorithm should define correct but excess boundaries to magnify partial salient features through a fine over-segmentation preprocessing. Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September

2 Superpixel is generated from two main clustering methods, one of which is graph-based algorithms and another is gradientascent-based algorithms [5]-[7]. In the graph-based algorithms, each pixel is regarded as a node, and the similarity between two neighbor pixels represents the weight of an edge linking two nodes. The algorithms intend to maximize linkage of pixels (viz. superpixel) over the graph. For the gradient-ascent-based algorithms, arbitrary image pixels as starting points are iteratively refined into clustering centers according to some convergence criterion. Then, image pixels are partitioned off into superpixels by the refined clustering centers. However, there are still poor boundary adherence and slow computation time in these superpixel algorithms. In the recent superpixel algorithms, SLIC (Simple Linear Iterative Clustering) [6] having extremely fast convergence is a fine oversegmentation method, which preserves pixel blocks in salient features of a tracing object. The SLIC method can reduce not only the complexity of image segmentations by pixel-positioned clustering, but also smooth the noises (e.g., lighting, refraction, shadow, snow, etc.) by uniform color level within image boundaries. Experiment result indicated that the SLIC rivals the other advanced superpixel algorithms based on MSRC (Microsoft Research Cambridge) image database. In a conventional SLIC the data clustering method is implemented by k-means algorithm within a grid region. However, the k-means algorithm is a center-based clustering algorithm whose performance (MSE) hinges upon the initialization of the centers and the tradeoff between color and spatial proximity [8]. The k-means algorithm is sensitive to initial clustering data points and is uncertain of the area of spatial search with the color-coordinated tolerance. For the reason, the initialization of clustering centers and the relation between centers and pixels of each search space are discussed in the paper. In this work, we propose to compute the boundaries of superpixels to portray image over-segmentation in an image plane using pixelbased k-means (PKM) clustering. In sections 2, we explain the differences between center-based and pixel-based k-means clustering. Then, section 3 presents the experimental design for the PKM method while the experiment results with discussed visual object dataset are given in section 4. Finally, conclusion is drawn in section Pixel-based K-means Clustering A conventional k-means method involves spatially blind and center-based clustering in certain parameter spaces, such as features or attributes [4], [9], [10]. However, each pixel of an image is represented by a 5-dimensional feature vector. Superpixel algorithm is used for pixel clusters with similar color value (CIE l, a, b) and neighbor location in two-dimensional (x, y) image space. Thus, we suppose that the superpixel representation is 2-D partitioned clustering problem, which aims to minimize the color differences among clustered pixels in a superpixel. The k-means method usually depends on the current partitioned centers (C 1,,C k ) to cluster all objects (viz. pixels). Our approach is different from the center-based k-means method and has two steps. 1) We first detect b centers (C 1,,C b ; b < k) that are closer to pixel i based on Euclidean-distance (Eq. (1)). { ( C 1,...C j...,c b ) P i C 1 <... < P i C j <... < P i C b <...< P i C k }, where P i C j = ( x j - x i ) 2 + ( y j - y i ) 2. (1) 2) Then pixel i is assigned into one of the b neighbor centers according to fine color proximity, d i,j So, our approach is called pixel-based k-means (PKM) clustering, which performance from pixel to center is based upon the Euclidean-distance-based measure, where the distance, d i,j indicates the color difference between pixel i and center-pixel j as below: d i,j = ( l j - l i ) 2 + (a j - a i ) 2 + (b j - b i ) 2. (2) Based on Equation. (2), the mathematical formation of the 2-D image segmentation clustering problem can be described as follows: 78 Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September 2015

3 N N b Min E = ( d i ) = ( min d i,j ). (3) i = 1 i = 1 j = 1 where N is the number of image pixels, b is the number of neighbor current centers close to clustered pixel i. For optimization problem shown in Eq. (3), we generate initial partitioned centers (C 1,,C k ) and each pixel had been associated to nearer b cluster centers. Then, an update step in Eq. (4), that is, iterative gradient descent will keep adjusting the cluster centers to be the mean C j =[x, y, l, a, b] vector of all the pixels P i = [x, y, l, a, b] belonging to the superpixel (viz. pixel cluster) until the total color difference E (Equation. (3)) converges on an acceptable threshold. Finally, a post-processing step will join trivial pixels to nearby superpixels. The pixel-based k-means clustering is summarized as below. C jnew =. N i = 1 I j ( i ) P i 1, pixel i center j., where I j ( i ) =.{ 0, o.w. N I j ( i ) i = 1. Algorithm: Pixel-based K-Means (PKM) clustering (4) I O Original image (Matrix of having N pixels) Super-pixel image (Matrix of having k super-pixels) 1: Initialize k cluster centers C k 5 = [l, a, b, x, y] k 5 2:repeat 3: for each pixel P i do 4: Find b neighbor centers C j close to pixel P i (Equation.(1)); 5: for each neighbor center (C 1,..C j.., C b ) do 6: Computer d i,j between pixel i and center j; 7: Find center j with minimal d i, j (Equation.(2)); 8: set d (i)= d i, j ; 9: set pixel i center j; 10: end for 11: end for 12: Update new cluster centers (Equation.(4)); 13: Compute total color difference E (Equation.(3)); 14: until E < threshold or attained maximal iterations 3. Experimental Design for PKM Table 1. Pseudo code for the PKM clustering We examined the PKM with different initial methods, the number of neighbor centers and post-processing methods to verify the quality of PKMs by under segmentation error (USE), boundary recall and boundary precision. All optimization computations were performed on an Intel Core i7 3.4GHz PC with 16 GB memory. We used the MS Windows 7 operating system and the MATLAB 2013b compiler. 3.1 The Quality of Superpixel Algorithm For evaluation of segmentation quality, under segmentation error (USE), boundary recall and boundary precision are standard measures for boundary adherence. A superpixel algorithm should adhere to the three error metrics. Under segmentation error Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September

4 (USE) is able to measure the overlap between superpixels and ground truth segments. In [6], the USE formula requires that an overlap of a superpixel and the ground truth is at least 5% of the superpixel size. There is a serious penalty for large superpixels. For this reason, this study adopts a new USE [11] that is defined as below. 1 use = [ ( min (p in, p out ) ) ] (5) N s GT P P s where N denotes the total number of pixels, and an in-part P in and an out-part P out from a superpixel P is divided by a segment S of ground truth GT border. For the rest of boundary performances, boundary recall is the proportion of true positive pixels to ground truth edges within a certain tolerance of pixel d. Boundary precision is the proportion of true positive pixels to superpixel boundary within a certain tolerance d. The true positive pixels means that the number of edge pixels in ground truth for whose exist a boundary pixel of superpixels in range d. In this work, the tolerance of pixel is set to 2. Figure 1. Illustration of superpixel boundary, ground truth edge and true positives 3.2 Initialization Argyle pattern and grid pattern are used to initialize k starting points (viz. clustering centers) for the PKM (Figure. 2). The two initializations resulted from the Forgy and random partition methods [12]. In the initialization of the PKM argyle pattern and grid pattern would generate k * centers that uniformly spread out over the 2-D image space. If k * is less than k, the shortage of centers will be generated at random. 240 (a) Argyle Pattern (b) Grid Pattern 320 Random Point Figure 2. Illustration of argyle pattern and grid pattern 80 Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September 2015

5 3.3 Post-processing Methods The clustering procedure of PKM and SLIC would generate superpixels with some trivial pixels in anfractuous boundary or very small pixels within a complete superpixel. To correct for this inadequacy, such pieces of trivial pixels are reassigned the label of the neighbor superpixels according to 1) adjoining frequency or 2) color similarity (Figure. 3). Besides, the 4-connected components algorithms would be implemented in PKM and SLIC. Superpixel-pink Superpixel-green Trivalpixels- lihtgreen Figure 3. Illustration of adjoining frequency f and color similarity s of connecting neighbor superpixels 4. Experiment Analysis We experimented the three main effects, namely the number of neighbor center (nbor), initialization methods (initial) and postprocessing methods (postp), to analyze performances for PKM. The performances, USE, boundary recall and precision described in [11]; sixteen original images and high-quality ground-truths obtained on the MSRC image dataset [8] using the method. Considering multiple effects of PKM, we performed a full experimental design (three-way ANOVA) for 5 levels in nbor, 2 levels in initial and 2 levels in postp. In the formulation of SLIC [6], when the weight, m is large, spatial proximity is more important; to the contrary, color proximity is more important. The weight m is regarded as a vital factor of the SLIC. Thus, we also performed a full experimental design (two-way ANOVA) for 3 levels in weight m and 2 levels in postp. For PKM and SLIC based on k-means clustering, the n-iterative gradient descent method with an initialization almost converges on the same clustering solution. Thus, there is only one observation (viz. clustering solution) per treatment. Interaction effect between two or three factors cannot be measured in two- or three-way ANOVA without replication (single observation). In the USE using the PKM for 32 superpixels (TABLE 2), the output vector [6 2 4] of MAIN effects represents 6 significant results for 1 st effect (nbor), 2 significant results for 2 nd effect (initial) and 4 significant results for 3 rd effect (postp). For the robust performance, the number of significant results of main or interaction effect should be more than the half of total testing numbers (16 highquality ground-truth images). K c Effect USE B-Recall B-Precision p<0.05 Effect p<0.05 Effect p<0.05 Effect 32 MAIN a [6 2 4] - [6 3 3] - [9 5 7] 1 INTER b [2 1 0] - [2 0 0] - [4 3 0] - 64 MAIN [9 3 7] 1 [11 3 4] 1 [9 1 7] 1 INTER [2 2 1] - [4 0 0] - [1 1 0] MAIN [13 7 6] 1 [10 3 5] 1 [14 3 8] 1, 3 INTER [3 2 2] - [4 2 1] - [3 2 1] MAIN [15 2 7] 1 [14 1 8] 1, 3 [13 3 5] 1 INTER [1 1 0] - [6 2 1] - [3 2 2] MAIN [15 7 4] 1 [14 3 5] 1 [15 3 7] 1 INTER [8 3 0] 1&2 [4 0 0] - [6 2 1] MAIN [15 6 2] 1 [ ] 1, 2 [13 8 5] 1, 2 INTER [10 0 0] 1&2 [14 2 0] 1&2 [10 2 0] 1& MAIN [ ] 1, 2 [ ] 1, 2 [ ] 1, 2 INTER [16 2 0] 1&2 [16 0 0] 1&2 [16 1 0] 1&2 Table 2. Three-way ANOVA to PKM a v MAIN denotes three main effects: [1: nbor, 2: initial, 3:postp]. b INTER denotes interaction effects: [1&2, 1&3, 2&3]. v c K is the number of superpixels v Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September

6 K Effect USE B-Recall B-Precision p<0.05 Effect p<0.05 Effect p<0.05 Effect 32 MAIN a [1 4] - [2 1] - [1 6] - 64 MAIN [1 3] - [2 3] - [2 2] MAIN [2 4] - [2 1] - [0 2] MAIN [5 3] - [4 1] - [4 4] MAIN [4 2] - [3 4] - [5 5] MAIN [11 1] 1 [10 0] 1 [7 1] MAIN [9 2] 1 [7 3] - [10 3] 1 a MAIN denotes three main effects: [1:weight, 2: postp]. Table 3. Two-way ANOVA to SLIC In small clustering centers, K = [32, 64, 128, 256], we mostly obtained high segmentation performances (USE, boundary recall and precision) when the pixel-based k-means (PKM) clustering set the number of neighbor centers (nbor) equal to 2 and implemented frequency method for post-processing (postp) to enforce connectivity of trivial pixels and superpixels (see TABLE II). In large number of clustering centers, K = [512, 1024, 2048], the high segmentation performances resulted from the PKM that adopted argyle pattern as initialization method with 2 neighbor centers (nbor effect). Moreover, in large number of clustering centers, K = [1024, 2048], the weight m is set to 12 that is beneficial to the three performances of SLIC (Table 3) In Figures. 4-6, we compare the USE, boundary recall and precision for the superior SLIC (m =12) and the superior PKM (b = 2) for increasing numbers of superpixels. Experiment results showed the PKM is better than the SLIC in the three segmentation performances over 64 clustering centers (superpixel size). In Table 4, the superior number of PKM/SLIC in the three performances displayed that the PKM is useful to large number of superpixel clustering. Meanwhile, we compare the time required for the SLIC and the PKM (Figure. 7), and found that the PKM spends CPU time that is higher than the SLIC does over 1600 clustering centers. Thus, we suggested that the superpixel algorithm, PKM (b = 2) is implemented within the range [100, 1500] of clustering centers for image segmentations. Figure 4. Boxplot and averaged USE of PKM and SLIC 82 Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September 2015

7 Figure 5. Boxplot and averaged recall of PKM and SLIC Figure 6. Boxplot and averaged precision of PKM and SLIC Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September

8 Figure 7. Time required of PKM and SLIC to generate superpixels K WIN USE B-Recall B-Precision 32 PKM/SLIC a 6/10 2/14 3/13 64 PKM/SLIC 5/11 5/11 5/ PKM/SLIC 7/9 8/8 7/9 256 PKM/SLIC 8/8 9/7 8/8 512 PKM/SLIC 11/5 12/4 11/ PKM/SLIC 8/8 11/5 6/ PKM/SLIC 13/3 14/2 9/7 a PKM/SLIC: The superior number of PKM/SLIC Table 4. Comparison of PKM with SLIC in MSRC Data Set Figure 8. Superpixel representation of a high-resolution image using the PKM with 256 clustering centers 84 Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September 2015

9 Figure 9. Superpixel representation of a high-resolution image using the SLIC with 256 clustering centers 5. Conclusion Superpixel representations have come into common use for image segmentations. These mid-level features clustering methods are able to reduce the computation load like video surveillance. We provide a pixel-based k-means (PKM) clustering that is able to summarize color information within a regular spatial size. In this work we perform a classical comparison of the PKM with state-of-the-art superpixel algorithm, SLIC based on the boundary adherence and segmentation speed. For boundary performance and computational time, this paper claims that the PKM with 2 neighbor centers adopts argyle pattern as initialization method and adjoining frequency method for post-processing, and is implemented within the range [100, 1500] of clustering centers for image segmentations. In addition, while a high-resolution image ( ) is examined on 256 clustering centers, the PKM (171 sec) is also better than the SLIC (319 sec) in CPU time (Figures. 8 and 9) under the MATLAB compiler. References [1] Chang, J., Wei, D., Fisher III, J. W. (2013). A video representation using temporal superpixels, in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2013 IEEE Conference on, p [2] Xiang, D., Tang, T., Zhao, L., Su, Y. (2013).Superpixel generating algorithm based on pixel intensity and location similarity for SAR image classification. [3] Morerio, P., Georgiu, G. C., Marcenaro, L., Regazzoni, C. (2015). Optimizing superpixel clustering for real-time egocentricvision applications, Signal Processing Letters, IEEE, 22, p [4] Vantaram, S. R., Saber, E. (2012). Survey of contemporary trends in color image segmentation, Journal of Electronic Imaging, 21, p [5] Veksler, Boykov, Y., Mehrani, P. (2010). Superpixels and supervoxels in an energy optimization framework, In: Computer Vision ECCV,ed. Springer, p [6] Achanta, R., Shaji, A., Smith, K., Lucchi, A., Fua, P., Susstrunk, S. (2012). SLIC superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods, Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 34, p [7] Levinshtein, Stere, A., Kutulakos, K. N., Fleet, D. J.,Dickinson, S. J. Siddiqi, K. (2009).Turbopixels: Fast superpixels using geometric flows, Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 31, p [8] Kanungo, T., Mount,,D. M., Netanyahu, N. S., Piatko, C. D., Silverman, R., Wu, A. Y. (2002). An efficient k-means clustering algorithm: Analysis and implementation, Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 24, p , [9] Saraswathi, S., Allirani, A. (2013). Survey on image segmentation via clustering, In: Information Communication and Embedded Systems (ICICES), International Conference on, p Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September

10 [10] Ngai, W. K., Kao, B., Chui, C. K., Cheng, R., Chau, M., Yip, K. Y. (2006). Efficient clustering of uncertain data, in Data Mining. ICDM 06. Sixth International Conference on, p [11] Neubert, P., Protzel, P. (2012). Superpixel benchmark and comparison, In: Proc. Forum Bildverarbeitung. [12]Hamerly, G.., Elkan, C. (2002). Alternatives to the k-means algorithm that find better clusterings, In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Information and knowledge management, p Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies Volume 6 Number 3 September 2015