Post date: Aug 17, 2011 8:48:12 PM
The version 4.0.0 -- ITSBN with evidence in every scale
/home/student1/MATLABcodes/ITSBN_4.0.0_package_testing
The folder for the MLSP paper's results are
/home/student1/MATLABcodes/MLSP2011_ITSBN_3.0.2
which uses the ITSBN version 3.0.2. The results are finalized already.
Also we developed the segmentation evaluation using the Cauchy-Schwarz divergence. The code is here
/home/student1/Dropbox/random_MATLAB_codes/Image_Segmentation_Evaluation
Experiment of using GMM and VBGMM on the pixel-level image segmentation
/home/student1/Dropbox/random_MATLAB_codes/GMM_multiple_features_image_segmentation
I overlay the superpixel-boundary on the segmentation result, and see how well it fits the groundtruth boundary. [done]
The majority vote scheme with superpixel (a.k.a 3S) has been developed, and the algorithm is explained in detail here. [done]
Additionally, BIC+GMM and VBGMM for image segmentation are implemented in order to figure out the optimal number of classes. Somehow, it seems to me that GMM+BIC outperform VBGMM. [done]
[Aug 22, 2011] GMM+BIC is then implemented with ITSBN version 4.5.0 as the initial clustering for GMM. [done] The results look good, and the code is pretty clean. Here are some explanation for the algorithm.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[Aug 24, 2011] Some more results have been produced.
[Aug 25, 2011] Anand suggested using the evaluation code from Berkeley's. [not yet]
We should use several criteria to compare:
Now I'm working on coding ITSBN version 6.0 which combine pixel-level features with superpixel-level features like I mentioned earlier in the recent idea depicted below.
I also would like to change the name from ITSBN to DDT because the former one is not self-explainable. DDT stands for Data-Driven Tree Bayesian Network.
Anand also suggested to make another experiment on the scale of the segmentation:
Originally, there is no clear idea on what does it mean by unsupervised image segmenting because the information of an object
significantly depends on the scale it is observed. Hence, an image segment of an image may or may not be meaningful in a particular
scale. This gives a new conclusion for a future of making an image dataset for unsupervised image segmentation. That is, a scene or
objects should be obtained collectively across multiple scale (or distance) so that we can use objects' common appearance across the
image or scale to validate the meaning of an image segment. This concept might invalidate the Berkeley dataset.
The procedure is as follows:
I think we have to carefully define what makes object "an object" in order to claim the meaningness of a segment.
<Do it quick!>
[Aug 30, 2011]
For a few days, I tried to finish the ITSBN version 6.0. The obstacle is the bug I have when using pixel-level segmentation. At least today I can make ITSBN version 6.0.0 run smoothly in the case where there is no missing pixels/patches. However, with missing patches, the results look very weird. This is under investigation! Some preliminary results are shown in here.
[Aug 31, 2011]
This morning, the bugs are fixed already! And the code are cleaned and works pretty well so far. I am running the code on the Berkeley's dataset.
1) For now, I should look at the evaluation method and code from Berkeley.
I got the evaluation code of BSDS300 working already!
2) There is an approach that I should compare against [MDL]. The website not only provides the code, but also the results and the benchmark code. So, I should look at this website seriously.
3) Xiaofeng Ren's website contains a lot of empirical study about superpixel, hence is a very good resource to write about superpixel. Moreover, there is a discussion on the completeness of superpixel map which can answer the question about why I pick N_sup = 200. Refer to URL for more details.
4) Also read the internal report about Berkeley's dataset pdf.
[Sep 1, 2011]
[Sep 4, 2011]
[Sep 6, 2011]
[Sep 7, 2011]
[Sep 8, 2011]