An Analysis of the Effect of Gaussian Error in Object Recognition

Object recognition is complicated by clutter, occlusion, and sensor error. Since pose hypotheses are based on image feature locations, these effects can lead to false negatives and positives. In a typical recognition algorithm, pose hypotheses are tested against the image, and a score is assigned to each hypothesis. We use a statistical model to determine the score distribution associated with correct and incorrect pose hypotheses, and use binary hypothesis testing techniques to distinguish between them. Using this approach we can compare algorithms and noise models, and automatically choose values for internal system thresholds to minimize the probability of making a mistake.

Sparse Correlation Kernel Analysis and Reconstruction

This paper presents a new paradigm for signal reconstruction and superresolution, Correlation Kernel Analysis (CKA), that is based on the selection of a sparse set of bases from a large dictionary of class- specific basis functions. The basis functions that we use are the correlation functions of the class of signals we are analyzing. To choose the appropriate features from this large dictionary, we use Support Vector Machine (SVM) regression and compare this to traditional Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for the tasks of signal reconstruction, superresolution, and compression. The testbed we use in this paper is a set of images of pedestrians. This paper also presents results of experiments in which we use a dictionary of multiscale basis functions and then use Basis Pursuit De-Noising to obtain a sparse, multiscale approximation of a signal. The results are analyzed and we conclude that 1) when used with a sparse representation technique, the correlation function is an effective kernel for image reconstruction and superresolution, 2) for image compression, PCA and SVM have different tradeoffs, depending on the particular metric that is used to evaluate the results, 3) in sparse representation techniques, L_1 is not a good proxy for the true measure of sparsity, L_0, and 4) the L_epsilon norm may be a better error metric for image reconstruction and compression than the L_2 norm, though the exact psychophysical metric should take into account high order structure in images.