“Map-based exploration of intrinsic shape differences and variability” by Rustamov, Ovsjanikov, Azencot, Ben-Chen, Chazal, et al. …

  • ©Raif Rustamov, Maks Ovsjanikov, Omri Azencot, Mirela (Miri) Ben-Chen, Frederic Chazal, and Leonidas (Leo) J. Guibas

Conference:


Type:


Title:

    Map-based exploration of intrinsic shape differences and variability

Session/Category Title: Shape Analysis

Presenter(s)/Author(s):


Moderator(s):


Abstract:


    We develop a novel formulation for the notion of shape differences, aimed at providing detailed information about the location and nature of the differences or distortions between the two shapes being compared. Our difference operator, derived from a shape map, is much more informative than just a scalar global shape similarity score, rendering it useful in a variety of applications where more refined shape comparisons are necessary. The approach is intrinsic and is based on a linear algebraic framework, allowing the use of many common linear algebra tools (e.g, SVD, PCA) for studying a matrix representation of the operator. Remarkably, the formulation allows us not only to localize shape differences on the shapes involved, but also to compare shape differences across pairs of shapes, and to analyze the variability in entire shape collections based on the differences between the shapes. Moreover, while we use a map or correspondence to define each shape difference, consistent correspondences between the shapes are not necessary for comparing shape differences, although they can be exploited if available. We give a number of applications of shape differences, including parameterizing the intrinsic variability in a shape collection, exploring shape collections using local variability at different scales, performing shape analogies, and aligning shape collections.

References:


    1. Allen, B., Curless, B., and Popović, Z. 2003. The space of human body shapes: reconstruction and parameterization from range scans. ACM Trans. Graph. 22, 3 (July), 587–594. Google ScholarDigital Library
    2. Anguelov, D., Srinivasan, P., Koller, D., Thrun, S., Rodgers, J., and Davis, J. 2005. Scape: shape completion and animation of people. ACM Trans. Graph. 24, 3, 408–416. Google ScholarDigital Library
    3. Ben-Chen, M., Weber, O., and Gotsman, C. 2009. Variational harmonic maps for space deformation. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 3 (July), 34:1–34:11. Google ScholarDigital Library
    4. Bookstein, F. 1996. Shape and the information in medical images: A decade of the morphometric synthesis. In Proc. IEEE MMBIA, 2–12.Google ScholarCross Ref
    5. Brezis, H. 2010. Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
    6. Bronstein, A., Bronstein, M., and Kimmel, R. 2006. Generalized multidimensional scaling: a framework for isometry-invariant partial surface matching. PNAS 103, 5, 1168–1172.Google ScholarCross Ref
    7. Bronstein, A., Bronstein, M., and Kimmel, R. 2008. Numerical Geometry of Non-Rigid Shapes. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
    8. Cootes, T., Taylor, C., et al. 2001. Statistical models of appearance for medical image analysis and computer vision. In Proc. SPIE Medical Imaging, vol. 4322, 236–248.Google ScholarCross Ref
    9. Dryden, I. L., and Mardia, K. V. 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
    10. Farrell, R., Branson, S., and Welinder, P., 2011. First Workshop on Fine-Grained Visual Categorization (FGVC) at CVPR 2011. http://http://www.fgvc.org/.Google Scholar
    11. Fletcher, P., Lu, C., Pizer, S., and Joshi, S. 2004. Principal geodesic analysis for the study of nonlinear statistics of shape. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 23, 8, 995–1005.Google ScholarCross Ref
    12. Gerig, G., Styner, M., Shenton, M., and Lieberman, J. 2001. Shape versus size: Improved understanding of the morphology of brain structures. In Proc. MICCAI, 24–32. Google ScholarDigital Library
    13. Golland, P., Grimson, W., Shenton, M., and Kikinis, R. 2005. Detection and analysis of statistical differences in anatomical shape. Medical Image Analysis 9, 1, 69–86.Google ScholarCross Ref
    14. Hasler, N., Stoll, C., Sunkel, M., Rosenhahn, B., and Seidel, H. 2009. A statistical model of human pose and body shape. Computer Graphics Forum 28, 2, 337–346.Google ScholarCross Ref
    15. Hertzmann, A., Jacobs, C. E., Oliver, N., Curless, B., and Salesin, D. H. 2001. Image analogies. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 327–340. Google ScholarDigital Library
    16. Kass, M., Witkin, A., and Terzopoulos, D. 1988. Snakes: Active contour models. Int. J. Comput. Vision 1, 4, 321–331.Google ScholarCross Ref
    17. Kilian, M., Mitra, N. J., and Pottmann, H. 2007. Geometric modeling in shape space. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 64:1–64:8. Google ScholarDigital Library
    18. Kim, V. G., Lipman, Y., and Funkhouser, T. 2011. Blended intrinsic maps. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4 (July), 79:1–79:12. Google ScholarDigital Library
    19. Kim, V. G., Li, W., Mitra, N. J., DiVerdi, S., and Funkhouser, T. 2012. Exploring collections of 3d models using fuzzy correspondences. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 4 (July), 54:1–54:11. Google ScholarDigital Library
    20. Lai, R., Shi, Y., Scheibel, K., Fears, S., Woods, R., Toga, A., and Chan, T. 2010. Metric-induced optimal embedding for intrinsic 3d shape analysis. In CVPR, 2871–2878.Google Scholar
    21. Nain, D., Styner, M., Niethammer, M., Levitt, J., Shenton, M., Gerig, G., Bobick, A., and Tannenbaum, A. 2007. Statistical shape analysis of brain structures using spherical wavelets. In Proc. ISBI, 209–212.Google Scholar
    22. Ovsjanikov, M., Li, W., Guibas, L., and Mitra, N. J. 2011. Exploration of continuous variability in collections of 3d shapes. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4 (July), 33:1–33:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
    23. Ovsjanikov, M., Ben-Chen, M., Solomon, J., Butscher, A., and Guibas, L. 2012. Functional maps: a flexible representation of maps between shapes. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 4 (July), 30:1–30:11. Google ScholarDigital Library
    24. Ovsjanikov, M., Ben-Chen, M., Chazal, F., and Guibas, L. 2013. Analysis and visualization of maps between shapes. Computer Graphics Forum. To appear.Google Scholar
    25. Pinkall, U., and Polthier, K. 1993. Computing discrete minimal surfaces and their conjugates. Exp. Math. 2, 1, 15–36.Google ScholarCross Ref
    26. Sahillioǧlu, Y., and Yemez, Y. 2011. Coarse-to-fine combinatorial matching for dense isometric shape correspondence. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 5, 1461–1470.Google ScholarCross Ref
    27. Schaefer, S., McPhail, T., and Warren, J. 2006. Image deformation using moving least squares. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 3 (July), 533–540. Google ScholarDigital Library
    28. Schumacher, H. 2013. Conformal maps and p-Dirichlet energies. Tech. rep., Univ. of Göttingen.Google Scholar
    29. Sharma, A., and Horaud, R. 2010. Shape matching based on diffusion embedding and on mutual isometric consistency. In Proc. NORDIA Workshop (CVPR), 29–36.Google Scholar
    30. Sumner, R. W., and Popović, J. 2004. Deformation transfer for triangle meshes. ACM Trans. Graph. 23, 3 (Aug.), 399–405. Google ScholarDigital Library
    31. Vasilescu, M., and Terzopoulos, D. 2007. Multilinear (tensor) ICA and dimensionality reduction. Independent Component Analysis and Signal Separation, 818–826. Google ScholarDigital Library
    32. Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Gutman, B., Chan, T., Becker, J., Aizenstein, H., Lopez, O., Tamburo, R., Toga, A., and Thompson, P. 2010. Multivariate tensor-based morphometry on surfaces: Application to mapping ventricular abnormalities in hiv/aids. Neuroimage 49, 3, 2141–2157.Google ScholarCross Ref
    33. Wuhrer, S., Shu, C., and Xi, P. 2012. Posture-invariant statistical shape analysis using laplace operator. Computers & Graphics 36, 5, 410–416. Google ScholarDigital Library

ACM Digital Library Publication:


Overview Page: