An Efficient Correspondence Based Algorithm for 2D and 3D Model Based Recognition

A polynomial time algorithm (pruned correspondence search, PCS) with good average case performance for solving a wide class of geometric maximal matching problems, including the problem of recognizing 3D objects from a single 2D image, is presented. Efficient verification algorithms, based on a linear representation of location constraints, are given for the case of affine transformations among vector spaces and for the case of rigid 2D and 3D transformations with scale. Some preliminary experiments suggest that PCS is a practical algorithm. Its similarity to existing correspondence based algorithms means that a number of existing techniques for speedup can be incorporated into PCS to improve its performance.

A Vector Signal Processing Approach to Color

Surface (Lambertain) color is a useful visual cue for analyzing material composition of scenes. This thesis adopts a signal processing approach to color vision. It represents color images as fields of 3D vectors, from which we extract region and boundary information. The first problem we face is one of secondary imaging effects that makes image color different from surface color. We demonstrate a simple but effective polarization based technique that corrects for these effects. We then propose a systematic approach of scalarizing color, that allows us to augment classical image processing tools and concepts for multi-dimensional color signals.

Properties of Support Vector Machines

Support Vector Machines (SVMs) perform pattern recognition between two point classes by finding a decision surface determined by certain points of the training set, termed Support Vectors (SV). This surface, which in some feature space of possibly infinite dimension can be regarded as a hyperplane, is obtained from the solution of a problem of quadratic programming that depends on a regularization parameter. In this paper we study some mathematical properties of support vectors and show that the decision surface can be written as the sum of two orthogonal terms, the first depending only on the margin vectors (which are SVs lying on the margin), the second proportional to the regularization parameter. For almost all values of the parameter, this enables us to predict how the decision surface varies for small parameter changes. In the special but important case of feature space of finite dimension m, we also show that there are at most m+1 margin vectors and observe that m+1 SVs are usually sufficient to fully determine the decision surface. For relatively small m this latter result leads to a consistent reduction of the SV number.

On the V(subscript gamma) Dimension for Regression in Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces

This paper presents a computation of the $V_gamma$ dimension for regression in bounded subspaces of Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces (RKHS) for the Support Vector Machine (SVM) regression $epsilon$-insensitive loss function, and general $L_p$ loss functions. Finiteness of the RV_gamma$ dimension is shown, which also proves uniform convergence in probability for regression machines in RKHS subspaces that use the $L_epsilon$ or general $L_p$ loss functions. This paper presenta a novel proof of this result also for the case that a bias is added to the functions in the RKHS.

An Equivalence Between Sparse Approximation and Support Vector Machines

In the first part of this paper we show a similarity between the principle of Structural Risk Minimization Principle (SRM) (Vapnik, 1982) and the idea of Sparse Approximation, as defined in (Chen, Donoho and Saunders, 1995) and Olshausen and Field (1996). Then we focus on two specific (approximate) implementations of SRM and Sparse Approximation, which have been used to solve the problem of function approximation. For SRM we consider the Support Vector Machine technique proposed by V. Vapnik and his team at AT&T Bell Labs, and for Sparse Approximation we consider a modification of the Basis Pursuit De-Noising algorithm proposed by Chen, Donoho and Saunders (1995). We show that, under certain conditions, these two techniques are equivalent: they give the same solution and they require the solution of the same quadratic programming problem.