| Literature DB >> 34072269 |
Xinran Liu1,2,3, Zhongju Wang1,2,3, Long Wang1,2,3, Chao Huang1,2,3, Xiong Luo1,2,3.
Abstract
This paper proposes a hybrid Rao-Nelder-Mead (Rao-NM) algorithm for image template matching is proposed. The developed algorithm incorporates the Rao-1 algorithm and NM algorithm serially. Thus, the powerful global search capability of the Rao-1 algorithm and local search capability of NM algorithm is fully exploited. It can quickly and accurately search for the high-quality optimal solution on the basis of ensuring global convergence. The computing time is highly reduced, while the matching accuracy is significantly improved. Four commonly applied optimization problems and three image datasets are employed to assess the performance of the proposed method. Meanwhile, three commonly used algorithms, including generic Rao-1 algorithm, particle swarm optimization (PSO), genetic algorithm (GA), are considered as benchmarking algorithms. The experiment results demonstrate that the proposed method is effective and efficient in solving image matching problems.Entities:
Keywords: Rao algorithm; computational intelligence; image matching; optimization
Year: 2021 PMID: 34072269 PMCID: PMC8229128 DOI: 10.3390/e23060678
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1Template matching geometry.
Figure 2Image of Function 1.
Figure 3Image of Function 2.
Figure 4Image of Function 3.
Figure 5Image of Function 4.
Results comparisons of the benchmark.
| Algorithm | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical Optimal Value | 0.0 | −1.0316 | −39.9450 | 0.0 | |
| Rao-1 | Average time | 6.9750 × 10−6 | 8.8250 × 10−6 | 0.0032 | 0.0033 |
| Actual optimal | 0.0610 | −0.1943 | −39.8498 | 0.0003 | |
| PSO | Average time | 0.2421 | 0.2767 | 0.3727 | 0.2229 |
| Actual optimal | 0.0048 | 57.6269 | −39.0897 | 2.6623 | |
| GA | Average time | 1.2741 | 1.2757 | 1.2739 | 1.2990 |
| Actual optimal | 0.0024 | −0.9549 | −39.4269 | 0.0032 | |
| Rao-NM | Average time | 4.1650 × 10−5 | 3.7300 × 10−5 | 0.0032 | 0.0033 |
| Actual optimal |
|
|
|
|
The bold indicates the best results.
Test results of TM using Rao-NM algorithm.
| Population Size | No. of Iterations | R | Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 50 | 77.71% | 71.42 |
| 50 | 100 | 80.70% | 140.23 |
| 50 | 200 | 84.51% | 277.56 |
| 100 | 50 | 85.32% | 138.61 |
| 100 | 100 | 89.13% | 274.53 |
| 100 | 200 | 87.77% | 546.94 |
| 200 | 50 | 88.58% | 273.82 |
| 200 | 100 | 91.84% | 544.45 |
| 200 | 200 | 95.10% | 1085.16 |
Population Size
No. of Iterations
R
Time (s)
Test results of TM using PSO.
| Population Size | No. of Iterations | R | Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 50 | 24.45% | 99.38 |
| 50 | 100 | 29.89% | 196.78 |
| 50 | 200 | 41.57% | 371.76 |
| 100 | 50 | 32.06% | 197.40 |
| 100 | 100 | 48.36% | 311.62 |
| 100 | 200 | 61.68% | 622.31 |
| 200 | 50 | 52.44% | 372.62 |
| 200 | 100 | 66.03% | 624.34 |
| 200 | 200 | 77.44% | 1194.61 |
Test results of TM using GA.
| Population Size | No. of Iterations | R | Time (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 50 | 15.48% | 196.89 |
| 50 | 100 | 34.51% | 394.18 |
| 50 | 200 | 58.96% | 776.82 |
| 100 | 50 | 35.05% | 399.27 |
| 100 | 100 | 66.03% | 792.42 |
| 100 | 200 | 82.06% | 1567.83 |
| 200 | 50 | 67.39% | 798.36 |
| 200 | 100 | 88.31% | 1570.10 |
| 200 | 200 | 94.29% | 2951.44 |
Performance of different methods on the Oxford Pets Dataset.
| Model | R (%) | Time (s) |
|---|---|---|
| PSO | 49.76 ± 0.84 | 2616.38 ± 9.29 |
| GA | 70.17 ± 0.82 | 4345.63 ± 151.69 |
| Rao-1 | 54.17 ± 0.59 | 1666.08 ± 25.15 |
| Proposed | 88.94 ± 0.64 | 1807.25 ± 30.69 |
Figure 6Example images of the WIDER FACE dataset.
Performance of different methods for Person Re-identification.
| Model | R (%) | Time (s) |
|---|---|---|
| PSO | 16.91 ± 3.34 | 97.067 ± 0.61 |
| GA | 48.19 ± 3.54 | 151.736 ± 4.06 |
| Rao-1 | 19.68 ± 1.60 | 86.23 ± 0.55 |
| Proposed | 56.70 ± 3.13 | 89.11 ± 1.09 |
Performance of different methods for FaceDetector.
| Model | R (%) | Time (s) |
|---|---|---|
| PSO | 15.2 ± 2.03 | 126.533 ± 1.51 |
| GA | 44.3 ± 4.59 | 189.719 ± 2.26 |
| Rao-1 | 19.5 ± 1.50 | 116.022 ± 0.54 |
| Proposed | 67.1 ± 3.95 | 120.916 ± 0.67 |
Figure 7(a) Predefined template image (160 x 70); (b) source image (960 × 540); (c) TM result.
Figure 8(a) Predefined template image (150 × 150); (b) source image (1000 × 1500); (c) TM result.
Figure 9(a) Predefined template image (100 × 150); (b) source image (1080 × 720); (c) TM result.
Results comparisons of TM.
| Image 1 | Image 2 | Image 3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSO | Average time | 5.64 | 24.44 | 27.86 |
| Accuracy | 34% | 28% | 50% | |
| GA | Average time | 9.33 | 14.75 | 24.59 |
| Accuracy | 82% | 84% | 50% | |
| Rao-1 | Average time | 4.27 | 13.86 | 11.72 |
| Accuracy | 34% | 2% | 52% | |
| Rao-NM | Average time | 4.28 | 13.87 | 11.73 |
| Accuracy | 96% | 86% | 86% |