Introduction About Site Map

XML
RSS 2 Feed RSS 2 Feed
Navigation

Main Page | Blog Index

Friday, March 2nd, 2012, 5:47 pm

New Masks (With Holes) for GMDS

Despite the fact that I cannot rollback to old versions of the algorithm — those that worked much better — I have run experiments on half of the entire Texas database. The performance was vastly inferior because of changes that I have made over the past couple of months.

Over the past few days I experimented with other smoothing schemes, as a colleague once suggested that I do. The improvements were very minor once performance was assessed with some ROC curves (few dozens of pairs). The general idea was, by removing areas or artifacts that distract from identity-related entropy, we can improve overall performance. The impediment has always been that, given too lenient and sensitive a measure, the items being compared are not identity-related but pose-related, noise-related, etc.

In my most recent experiments I have been looking into more kinds of masks, but none so far offers a magic solution with state-of-the-art performance.



Symmetric mask where eyes are removed and the nose tip too, in order to accentuate topology and delve into areas more “stable” than eye surface



Examples of correct matches where the mask is symmetric (the “classic” mode)



Examples of correct matches where the mask is cut at nose level



Examples of correct matches where the mask is intentionally asymmetric (to avoid flipping over)

I decided to tweak this further, testing GMDS for surfaces with holes.

Dealing with the existing algorithm, which performs more weakly than months ago (due to experimental changes that are hard to selectivity rollback), I have some new results. I have tested it with and without support (difference in dilation/distance for FMM cutoff), but in both cases the ROC curves were too disappointing to be worth plotting and showing. The approach does not seem suitable for good performance to be reached. With or without the most performance-promising algorithm, the general observation is that GMDS does not deal well with these holes (connected torus-like shapes).



Example of pairs of surfaces where eyes and nose tip got removed



An increasing level of geodesic dilation where eyes are cropped out but not the nose tip



ROC curves for the above

Technical Notes About Comments

Comments may include corrections, additions, citations, expressions of consent or even disagreements. They should preferably remain on topic.

Moderation: All genuine comments will be added. If your comment does not appear immediately (a rarity), it awaits moderation as it contained a sensitive word or a URI.

Trackbacks: The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

https://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2012/03/02/gmds-and-holes/trackback/

Syndication: RSS feed for comments on this post RSS 2

    See also: What are feeds?, Local Feeds

Comments format: Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, E-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Back to top

Retrieval statistics: 21 queries taking a total of 0.153 seconds • Please report low bandwidth using the feedback form
Original styles created by Ian Main (all acknowledgements) • PHP scripts and styles later modified by Roy Schestowitz • Help yourself to a GPL'd copy
|— Proudly powered by W o r d P r e s s — based on a heavily-hacked version 1.2.1 (Mingus) installation —|