Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 3629174, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3629174
Research Article

A Multiobjective Approach to Homography Estimation

1Sciences Division, Centro Universitario de Tonalá of Universidad de Guadalajara, 45400 Guadalajara, JAL, Mexico
2Electronic Division, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías of Universidad de Guadalajara, 44430 Guadalajara, JAL, Mexico
3Computer Sciences Department, Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Guadalajara, 45201 Guadalajara, JAL, Mexico

Received 4 June 2015; Accepted 4 October 2015

Academic Editor: Yufeng Zheng

Copyright © 2016 Valentín Osuna-Enciso et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

In several machine vision problems, a relevant issue is the estimation of homographies between two different perspectives that hold an extensive set of abnormal data. A method to find such estimation is the random sampling consensus (RANSAC); in this, the goal is to maximize the number of matching points given a permissible error (Pe), according to a candidate model. However, those objectives are in conflict: a low Pe value increases the accuracy of the model but degrades its generalization ability that refers to the number of matching points that tolerate noisy data, whereas a high Pe value improves the noise tolerance of the model but adversely drives the process to false detections. This work considers the estimation process as a multiobjective optimization problem that seeks to maximize the number of matching points whereas Pe is simultaneously minimized. In order to solve the multiobjective formulation, two different evolutionary algorithms have been explored: the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) and the Nondominated Sorting Differential Evolution (NSDE). Results considering acknowledged quality measures among original and transformed images over a well-known image benchmark show superior performance of the proposal than Random Sample Consensus algorithm.

1. Introduction

A homography is a transformation that maps points of interest by considering movements as translation, rotation, skewing, scaling, and projection among image planes, all of them contained into a single, invertible matrix. In general terms, those displacements could be considered to be belonging to three cases: an object moving in front of a static camera, a static scene captured by a moving camera, and multiple cameras from different viewpoints. In either case, those approximations simplify the utilization of image sequences to construct panoramic views [13], to increment resolution in low quality imagery [46], to remove camera movements when studying the motion of an object into a video [7], and to control the position of robots [810], among other uses [1113].

Taking a set of experimental data as a base, in a modeling problem there exist two data types: those that can be adjusted to a model with a certain probability (also known as inliers) and those that are not related to the model (e.g., outliers). There are several algorithms specialized in solving this classification problem; one of such techniques is the Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC) [14].

In the algorithm, minimum subsets of experimental data are randomly taken, and a model is proposed and evaluated according to a permissible error (Pe), in order to determine how well the model adjusts to the data [15]. This process is repeated until a number of iterations are completed, and the model with the maximum number of inliers is taken.

Even considering that RANSAC is a robust and simple algorithm, it has some drawbacks [1618], two of which are the high dependency between the number of matching points (model quality) and the permissible error. In this work, it is considered that those disadvantages belong to a multiobjective optimization problem. On the one hand, due to the random nature of RANSAC, achieving improvements in the quantity of inliers implies more iterations in order to discard unadjusted data to the proposed model. On the other hand, the number of matching points conflictingly depends on the permissible error (Pe). A low Pe value increases the accuracy of the model but degrades its generalization ability to tolerate noisy data (number of matching points). By contrast, a high Pe value improves the noise tolerance of the model but adversely drives the process to false detections. The main error source in the model estimation procedure arises from defining the Pe value with no consideration of the relationship between the dataset and the model.

In order to make the RANSAC algorithm more efficient, some improvements have been suggested; for instance, in the algorithm called MLESAC [19] it is considered that the inliers into the images will follow a Gaussian distribution whereas the outliers are considered as uniformly positioned; according to that, the voting process is achieved through maximizing the likelihood and the original RANSAC. The SIMFIT method [20] proposed the forecasting of the permissible error, through an iterative reestimation of that value, until the model is adjusted to the experimental data. Some other variants to the original RANSAC are the projection-pursuit method, the Two-Step Scale Estimator, and the CC-RANSAC [15, 21, 22], all of them focused on maximizing the number of inliers by making more searches into the data and therefore making the complete process more expensive, computationally speaking. In such sense, an algorithm that tries to reduce the computational cost is the one proposed in [17], where the maximization of the inliers is achieved by using a metaheuristic technique, called Harmony Search.

Nevertheless the mentioned improvements, the search strategy used in the mentioned articles (with exception of [17]), are more close to random walking, and therefore those approaches are computationally expensive. Moreover, in all the cases only one objective function is considered, usually related to the number of matching points, while the permissible error is left behind. In accordance with that, and in order to overcome the typical RANSAC problems, we propose to visualize the RANSAC operation as a multiobjective problem solved by an evolutionary algorithm. Under such point of view, at each iteration, new candidate solutions are built by using evolutionary operators taking into account the quality of the previously generated models, rather than purely random, reducing significantly the number of iterations. Likewise, new objective functions can be added to incorporate other elements that allow an accurate evaluation of the quality of a candidate model.

When an optimization problem involves more than one objective function, the procedure of finding one or more optimum solutions is known as multiobjective optimization (MO) [23]. Under MO, different solutions produce conflicting scenarios among the objectives [24]. Contrary to single objective optimization, in MO it is usually difficult to find one optimal solution. Instead, algorithms for optimizing multiobjective problems try to find a family of points known as the Pareto optimal set [25]. These points verify that there is no different feasible solution which strictly improves one component of the objective function vector without worsening at least one of the remaining ones. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are considered the most adequate methods for solving complex MO problems, due mainly they are many times capable of maintaining a good diversity [26], can extend to multiple populations [27], as well as can work with a variety of problems such as discrete ones [28]. Several variants of nondominated sorting as well as new methods have been proposed in recent years in order to solve problems related to feature selection [29], community detection [30], among other issues [24, 31]; however, the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) [32] and the Nondominated Sorting Differential Evolution (NSDE) [31] are some of the most representative.

In this paper, the estimation process is considered as a multiobjective problem where the number of matching points and the permissible error (Pe) are simultaneously optimized. In order to solve the multiobjective formulation, two different evolutionary algorithms have been explored: the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) and the Nondominated Sorting Differential Evolution (NSDE). Results considering acknowledged quality measures among original and transformed images over a well-known image benchmark show superior performance of the proposal than Random Sample Consensus algorithm on the problem being assessed, giving good results even with high outliers levels.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explains the problem of image homography considering multiple views. Section 3 introduces the fundamentals of the RANSAC method. Section 4 briefly explains the evolutionary approaches that are used in this paper in order to solve the multiobjective problem while Section 5 presents the proposed method. Section 6 exhibits the experimental set and its performance. Finally, Section 7 establishes some final conclusions.

2. Homography between Images

For the case where two images are taken of the same scene from different perspectives, a problem consists in finding a transformation that permits the matching among the pixels belonging to both images. This denominated the image matching problem. The search of a geometric transformation is achieved by utilizing corresponding points from image pairs [33, 34], which enable forming feature vectors, also called image descriptors. Even when considering that such descriptors are not completely reliable, so they can produce erroneous results for the image matching, in this paper they are used to find the geometric relations between images by using the homography, which is explained in the next paragraphs.

Consider a set of pointssuch that and are the positions with respect to a given image pair.

By means of a plane, a homography establishes a geometric relation between two images taken under different perspectives, as can be seen in Figure 1; this allows for a projection of the points from the plane to a pair of images, through or . Conducive to find the homography between an image pair, a set with four point matches is only required, to construct a linear system which must be solved [35]. Concerning evaluation of the quality of the candidate homography, it is necessary to calculate the distance among the point positions of the first image with respect to the second image; that distance is labeled as the Mismatch Error and is defined byas long as and are the respective errors from each image.

Figure 1: Homography from a plane between two views.

Consider the example shown in Figure 2, where five correspondences are depicted; for the case of the points , the error is considerable, and therefore the quality of the candidate homography will be ranked with a low value.

Figure 2: Example of evaluation process for a particular homography .

3. Random Sampling Consensus (RANSAC) Algorithm

To find correspondences from images through a geometric transformation (homography) and therefore to increase the number of correct matches (inliers), the use of a robust approach, such as RANSAC, is necessary. Contrary to the inliers, outliers are conflicting points related to the candidate homography.

The idea behind the algorithm consists in discovering the best hypothesis from a set of hypotheses generated by the source data, usually corrupted with noise. The construction of candidate hypothesis is achieved by means of a sample , with a minimum size , to model estimation. As in this paper , then several could be taken from the complete source data , and, therefore, an exhaustive search would be computationally expensive.

In Pseudocode 1 the basic pseudocode of the RANSAC algorithms family is shown.

Pseudocode 1

A subsequent step consists in finding the best candidate hypothesis from all the constructed and evaluated hypotheses, according toThe degree of agreement is directly related to the number of inliers, and it is calculated bywhere is a permissible error, is the number of elements contained in the source data , and is the quadratic error produced by the th data considering the hypothesis ; in other words, it represents the error produced by the th correspondence.

In original RANSAC algorithm, the best hypothesis is the one with the maximum number of inliers. The point which produces an error lesser than a permissible error is considered as an inlier of candidate hypothesis ; otherwise, it is considered as an outlier.

The RANSAC technique has to search the entire source data at least once in the worst case; by considering such situation, the algorithm is similar to random walking. Several strategies could improve that kind of search, like evolutionary algorithms (EAs) [36]. These techniques are capable of exploitation and exploration of the search space judiciously, by considering that new candidate solutions will contain information regarding the best spots from search space, visited through each generation.

This work proposes working the estimation process as a multiobjective problem, by simultaneously optimizing both the number of matching points and the permissible error (Pe). In order to solve the multiobjective formulation, two different evolutionary algorithms have been explored: the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) and the Nondominated Sorting Differential Evolution (NSDE). With the formulation, the proposed method adopts a different sampling strategy than RANSAC to generate putative solutions. Under the new mechanism, at every iteration new candidate solutions are generated based on the quality of previously found solutions, avoiding random walks in the searching process, as in the case of RANSAC.

4. Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms

A MO problem can be stated as minimizing or maximizing the function [37]where a solution is a vector of decision variables . The last set of constraints is called variable bounds, restricting each decision variable to take a value within a lower and upper bound and whose limits constitute a decision space . There are inequalities and equality constraints, both associated with the problem. In order to cover both minimization and maximization of objective functions, the operator is used between two solutions and . Therefore, denotes that solution is better than solution whereas implies that solution is better than or equal to solution .

Different from single objective optimization, in the case of multiobjective optimization, it is usually difficult to find one optimal solution. Instead, algorithms for optimizing multiobjective problems attempt to find a group of points known as the Pareto optimal set [38]. These points verify that there is no other feasible solution which strictly improves one component of the objective function vector without worsening at least one of the remaining ones. A more formal definition of Pareto optimality or Pareto efficiency is the following.

Definition 1. If, given a solution , there exists another solution such that    and such that , then one will say that solution dominates solution (denoted by ), and, obviously, solution will never be sensibly selected as the solution to the problem. If , , one will say that solution weakly dominates solution and will be denoted by     .

Definition 2. A solution is considered to be part of the Pareto optimal set if and only if such that .

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are considered the most adequate methods for solving complex MO problems and some have been proposed to face such problems, where the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) and the Nondominated Sorting Differential Evolution (NSDE) are some of the most representative.

4.1. Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II)

NSGA-II, introduced by Deb et al. [32], is one of the most applicable and employed algorithms based on GA to solve multiobjective optimization problems. NSGA-II starts randomly generating an initial () parent population of size . During several consecutive generations (), the objective values of are evaluated. Then, the population is ranked based on the nondomination sorting procedure to create Pareto optimal fronts . Each individual of the population under evaluation obtains a rank equal to its nondomination level (1 is the best level, 2 is the next-best level, and so on), where the first front contains individuals with the best rank, the second front corresponds to the individuals with the second rank, and so on. In the next step, the crowding distance between members of each front is calculated by a linear distance criterion. As a binary tournament selection operator based on a crowded-comparison operator is used, it is necessary to calculate both the rank and the crowding distance of each member in the population. Using this selection operator, two members are selected among the population. Then, the member with the larger crowding distance is selected if they share an equal rank. Otherwise, the member with the lower rank is chosen. Next, a new population of offspring with a size of is created using the random selection, the simulated binary crossover [19], and the polynomial mutation [20] operators to create a population consisting of the current and the new population of the size of .

4.1.1. Simulated Binary Crossover

This operator simulates the behavior of the single-point crossover on binary strings. Given as parents and , they generate the th component () of the offspring individuals as follows: where is a random number in . The parameter determines the separation between the offspring individuals in comparison to their parents.

4.1.2. Polynomial Mutation

This operator employs a polynomial distribution in the following way: where and are the low and upper bounds, respectively, for the decision variable, whereas represents the distribution index.

4.2. Nondominated Sorting Differential Evolution (NSDE)

The NSDE [31] algorithm is an extension of the original differential evolution (DE) [39] method for solving multiobjective problems. NSDE works in a similar way to DE except in the selection operation which is modified in order to be coherent with the nondominated criterion.

The algorithm begins by initializing a population of -dimensional individuals and considers parameter values that are randomly distributed between the prespecified lower initial parameter bound and the upper initial parameter bound . In order to generate a trial individual (solution), the DE algorithm first mutates the current individual from the population by adding the scaled difference of two vectors from the current population:with being the mutant individual. Indexes and are randomly selected with the condition that they are different and have no relation to the individual index whatsoever (i.e., ). The mutation scale factor is a positive real number, typically less than one. In order to increase the diversity of the parameter element, the crossover operation is applied between the mutant individual and the original individuals . The result is the trial individual which is computed by considering an element to element operation as follows: where . The subscripts and are the parameter and individual indexes, respectively. The crossover parameter controls the fraction of parameters where the mutant individual is contributing to the final trial individual. In addition, the trial individual always inherits the mutant individual parameter according to the randomly chosen index , assuring that the trial individual differs by at least one parameter from . Finally, a nondominated selection is used to build the Pareto optimal front. Thus, if the trial individual dominates the target individual , the trial individual is copied into the population for the next generation; otherwise, the target individual is copied:

5. The Proposed Approach

5.1. Individual Representation

In the estimation process, each candidate homography is calculated by using four different point correspondences. The candidate homography is thus evaluated over the entire dataset , dividing all elements from the dataset to inliers and outliers, according to a permissible error (Pe).

In order to construct a candidate solution or individual , four indexes, , , , and , are selected from the set of correspondences. Therefore, the homography across the two views is computed by solving the linear system produced from the set of four point matches , , , and . Additionally, the permissible error that is associated with the individual is incorporated as a decision variable. Thus, in the proposed algorithm, an individual or candidate solution is coded as a vector of five decision variables that is defined by

In our approach, the candidate solution presents the same functionality, that is, hypothesis in the original RANSAC algorithm.

5.2. Multiobjective Problem Formulation

In the proposed approach, the estimation process is considered as a multiobjective problem where the number of matching points and the permissible error are simultaneously optimized. Under such circumstances, the multiobjective problem can be defined as follows: considering that and ; and where represents the maximal commensurable error produced by a candidate homography. Although could be any high value, a sufficiently small value significantly reduces the search of Pareto fronts. In this work, has been set to 25.

5.3. Computational Procedures

In order to solve the multiobjective formulation, two different evolutionary algorithms have been explored: the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) and the Nondominated Sorting Differential Evolution (NSDE). In this section, the computational procedure of both methods is described when they face the multiobjective problem described in (12).

(a) Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II)(1)Generate randomly a population of five-dimensional individuals. The decision variables of each individual () are produced, considering a random number between their search bounds.(2)Produce an offspring population from by using simulated binary crossover and polynomial mutation.(3)Create a new population as the combination of and   ().(4)Perform a nondominated sorting to and identify different fronts: , , and so forth.(5)Set the new population and the counter .(6)Perform and increment   .(7)Assuming that represents the number of elements contained in , repeat step , until .(8)Assuming that , clear the initial distance () of each element from .(9)For each objective function , sort the set in worse order of . Therefore, contains the sorted elements of the objective function .(10)For , assign a large distance to the boundary elements of   . For all other elements , assign a distance calculated as follows:where represent the element from the sorted set . and symbolize the maximum and minimum value of (11)Select the elements from whose distances are the longest and include them in .(12)If the maximum number of iterations has been reached, the process is thus completed; otherwise, go back to step .(13)The final population contains the Pareto optimal set.

(b) Nondominated Sorting Differential Evolution (NSDE)(1)Set the DE parameters and .(2)Generate randomly a population of five-dimensional individuals. The decision variables of each individual () are produced, considering a random number between their search bounds.(3)Generate a trial population with individuals () of five dimensions() under Procedure 1.(4)Select the elements () of the next population under Procedure 2.(5)If the maximum number of iterations has been reached, the process is thus completed; otherwise, go back to step .(6)The final population contains the Pareto optimal set.

Procedure 1
Procedure 2

6. Experimental Results

This part of the paper deals with several experiments performed over a collection of real images. The results exhibit the performance of NSGA-II and NSDE solving the estimation problem as a multiobjective optimization task in comparison to RANSAC. In the experiments, two performance indexes are considered: the mean squared error (MSE) and the Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR). Such indexes allow appropriately assessing the accuracy of the estimation.

The problem of homography estimation consists in finding a geometric transformation that maps points of a first view () to a second view (), taken from different point of view. This projective transformation relates corresponding points of the plane projected into the first and second views by or . In order to calculate the MSE and the PSNR, two different images are defined: the estimated image (EI) and the actual image (AI). The EI is produced by mapping the pixels from the first view in terms of the estimated homography   . On the other hand, the actual image (AI) corresponds to the second view image.

The mean squared error (MSE) evaluates the squared differences among the pixels of EI and AI. Considering that represents the image dimensions, the MSE can be computed as follows:

The Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) is commonly used to measure the quality of reconstruction of an image that undergoes some process. The signal in this case is the original data (AI), and the noise is the error introduced by the transformation H (EI). When comparing images, PSNR is an approximation to human perception of approximation quality. A higher PSNR value generally indicates that the estimation is of higher quality. PSNR is mainly defined via the mean squared error (MSE). Given image, the PSNR is defined aswhere MAX is the maximum possible pixel value contained in the image.

The images used in the experiments are collected from [40] which contains several two-view images of different objects, considering a dimension of 640 × 480 pixels. Likewise, the set of images used in the experimental test is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Set of images used in the experimental set.

For the test, both algorithms, NSGA-II and NSDE, have been configured considering 200 individuals under 200 iterations. In order to conduct a fair comparison between RANSAC and multiobjective approaches, RANSAC has been operated during 40,000 iterations. Such number of calculations (200 × 200) corresponds to the maximum number of evaluations invested by NSGA-II and NSDE during their execution.

Figure 4 shows the Pareto optimal set obtained by NSGA-II and NSDE during the estimation process, considering Figures 5(a) and 5(b) as the first and second views, respectively. In Figure 4, the best RANSAC estimations have been also included as a reference, only to validate the performance of the multiobjective approaches.

Figure 4: Pareto fronts found by NSGA-II and NSDE. The point obtained by RANSAC is placed only as a reference.
Figure 5: Estimation results: (a) and (b) original images, (c) and (d) RANSAC, (e) and (f) NSGA-II, and (g) and (h) NSDE.

In order to illustrate the obtained results, Figure 5 shows the estimations produced by all methods in terms of their resulting estimated images. The single estimation generated by RANSAC is exhibited in Figures 5(c) and 5(d). In case of the multiobjective approaches, three solutions from the Pareto optimal set have been selected: the boundary solution for , the boundary solution for , and the median solution. Such solutions are presented in Figures 5(e)-5(f) and 5(g)-5(h), for NSGA-II and NSDE, respectively.

Table 1 presents the performance results for NSGA-II and NSDE in terms of the mean squared error (MSE) and the Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) over three pairs of images. The results present the averaged outcomes obtained throughout 30 different executions. In order to appreciate the differences, results only report the boundary solutions obtained for and . The best results at each experiment are highlighted in Table 1.

Table 1: Evaluation of the estimation results for NSGA-II and NSDE.

In order to evaluate the robustness of both algorithms, a set of outliers was added by selecting correspondence random points within the space limits. In the test, the fraction of outliers varies from 85% to 95%. Figure 6 shows the estimations produced by all methods in terms of their resulting estimated images, considering image pairs in Figures 3(k) and 3(l). Table 2 presents the performance results for RANSAC, NSGA-II, and NSDE in terms of the mean squared error (MSE) over the three pairs of images. The results exhibit the averaged outcomes obtained throughout 30 different executions.

Table 2: Quality measures, calculated from single extreme values, found by RANSAC, NSDE, and NSGA-II, varying the outlier number.
Figure 6: Results obtained by RANSAC, NSGA-II, and NSDE.

From Table 2, it can be easily seen that as the number of outliers increases, the performance of each algorithm also decreases. However, the NSDE algorithm obtains the best performance in almost every case despite outliers rising above 95%.

The approach has been experimentally tested considering a set of benchmark experiments. The efficiency of the method has been evaluated in terms of the mean squared error (MSE) and the Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) measurements. Experimental results that consider real images provide evidence on the remarkable performance of the proposed approach in comparison to the classical RANSAC.

The Wilcoxon signed rank test [41] is a nonparametric test used both to compare quantitatively some experimental data and also to determine whether there exists a meaningful difference among them. By applying the test to the data contained in Table 2, it was found that the algorithms NSGA-II and NSDE are substantially different with a 5% significance, so it can be considered that NSDE gives better results than NSGA-II when both algorithms are applied to the homography problem. In the same order of ideas, the same test was used to compare NSGA-II and RANSAC algorithms, causing the first algorithm to be better than the second.

7. Conclusions

In this work the use of two multiobjective evolutionary algorithms in conjunction with point correspondences is proposed to estimate homographies between image pairs. Under this approach, the estimation process is considered as a multiobjective problem with the number of matching points and the permissible error being simultaneously optimized. Under such circumstances, the approach has the capacity to find the best balance between both objectives.

A close inspection of the standard deviations from Table 1 reveals that NSGA-II maintains a big dispersion in its solutions. This aspect is mainly emphasized in the MSE index. Such an inconsistency is a consequence of the NSGA-II incapacity to produce similar solutions during its executions. On the contrary, NSDE produces better solutions than NSGA-II in terms of accuracy (MSE) and consistency. On the other hand, as a higher PSNR value indicates that the estimation is of higher quality, results produced by the NSDE algorithm exhibit the best performance.

In order to solve the multiobjective formulation, two different evolutionary algorithms have been explored: the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) and the Nondominated Sorting Differential Evolution (NSDE).

After several tests, it was found that NSDE gives better results in solving the image matching problem presented, according to a known statistical test over a set of experimental results.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, CONACYT, under various grants.

References

  1. R. Szeliski and H.-Y. Y. Shum, “Creating full view panoramic image mosaics and environment maps,” in Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH '97), pp. 251–258, ACM, Los Angeles, Calif, USA, August 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. Y. He and R. Chung, “Image mosaicking for polyhedral scene and in particular singly visible surfaces,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 1200–1213, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. Brown and D. G. Lowe, “Automatic panoramic image stitching using invariant features,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 59–73, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. A. Akyol and M. Gökmen, “Super-resolution reconstruction of faces by enhanced global models of shape and texture,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 4103–4116, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. H. Huang, H. T. He, X. Fan, and J. P. Zhang, “Super-resolution of human face image using canonical correlation analysis,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 2532–2543, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. K. Jia and S. G. Gong, “Hallucinating multiple occluded face images of different resolutions,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 27, no. 15, pp. 1768–1775, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. O. Deniz, G. Bueno, E. Bermejo, and R. Sukthankar, “Fast and accurate global motion compensation,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 2887–2901, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. H. Zhang and J. P. Ostrowski, “Visual motion planning for mobile robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 199–208, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. C. Sagüés and J. J. Guerrero, “Visual correction for mobile robot homing,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 41–49, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. G. López-Nicolás, J. J. Guerrero, and C. Sagüés, “Visual control of vehicles using two-view geometry,” Mechatronics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 315–325, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. E. Montijano and C. Sagues, “Distributed multi-camera visual mapping using topological maps of planar regions,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1528–1539, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. Su, R. Chung, and L. Jin, “Homography-based partitioning of curved surface for stereo correspondence establishment,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1459–1471, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. T. T. Santos and C. H. Morimoto, “Multiple camera people detection and tracking using support integration,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 47–55, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  15. X. Qian and C. Ye, “NCC-RANSAC: a fast plane extraction method for 3-D range data segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 2771–2783, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. Matas and O. Chum, “Randomized RANSAC with Td,d test,” Image and Vision Computing, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 837–842, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. C.-M. Cheng and S.-H. Lai, “A consensus sampling technique for fast and robust model fitting,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1318–1329, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. E. Cuevas and M. Díaz, “A method for estimating view transformations from image correspondences based on the harmony search algorithm,” Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2015, Article ID 434263, 15 pages, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. P. H. S. Torr and A. Zisserman, “MLESAC: a new robust estimator with application to estimating image geometry,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 138–156, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. B. Heinrich, “Efficient and robust model fitting with unknown noise scale,” Image and Vision Computing, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 735–747, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. R. Subbarao and P. Meer, “Beyond RANSAC: user independent robust regression,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop (CVPRW '06), p. 101, IEEE, June 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. H. Wang and D. Suter, “Robust adaptive-scale parametric model estimation for computer vision,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1459–1474, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. K. Deb, Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2001. View at MathSciNet
  24. A. Rosales-Pérez, J. A. Gonzalez, C. A. Coello Coello, H. J. Escalante, and C. A. Reyes-Garcia, “Multi-objective model type selection,” Neurocomputing, vol. 146, pp. 83–94, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  25. I. Giagkiozis and P. J. Fleming, “Methods for multi-objective optimization: an analysis,” Information Sciences, vol. 293, pp. 338–350, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. M. Li, S. Yang, and X. Liu, “Diversity comparison of Pareto front approximations in many-objective optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 2568–2584, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. Z.-H. Zhan, J. Li, J. Cao, J. Zhang, H. S.-H. Chung, and Y.-H. Shi, “Multiple populations for multiple objectives: a coevolutionary technique for solving multiobjective optimization problems,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 445–463, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. X.-B. Hu, M. Wang, and E. Di Paolo, “Calculating complete and exact pareto front for multiobjective optimization: a new deterministic approach for discrete problems,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 1088–1101, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. B. Xue, M. Zhang, and W. N. Browne, “Particle swarm optimization for feature selection in classification: a multi-objective approach,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1656–1671, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. C. Liu, J. Liu, and Z. Jiang, “A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on similarity for community detection from signed social networks,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 2274–2287, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. H. J. Sun, C. H. Peng, J. F. Guo, and H. S. Li, “Non-dominated sorting differential evolution algorithm for multi-objective optimal integrated generation bidding and scheduling,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Intelligent Systems (ICIS '09), vol. 1, pp. 372–376, Shanghai, China, November 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182–197, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. H. Bay, A. Ess, T. Tuytelaars, and L. V. Gool, “Surf: speeded up robust features,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 346–359, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  34. C. Harris and M. Stephens, “A combined corner and edge detector,” in Proceedings of the 4th Alvey Vision Conference, pp. 147–151, 1988.
  35. R. I. Hartley and A. Zisserman, Multiple View Geometry Try in Computer Vision, Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2004.
  36. P. Meer, “Robust techniques in computer vision,” in Emerging Topics in Computer Vision, G. Medioni and S. B. Kang, Eds., pp. 107–190, Prentice-Hall, Boston, Mass, USA, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  37. M. Ray and D. P. Mohapatra, “Multi-objective test prioritization via a genetic algorithm,” Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 261–270, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. M. Ehrgott, J. Ide, and A. Schöbel, “Minmax robustness for multi-objective optimization problems,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 239, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. R. Storn and K. Price, “Differential evolution—a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces,” Tech. Rep. TR-95-012, 012, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, Calif, USA, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  40. D. Nistér and H. Stewénius, “Scalable recognition with a vocabulary tree,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR '06), vol. 2, pp. 2161–2168, June 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. F. Wilcoxon, “Individual comparisons by ranking methods,” Biometrics Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 80–83, 1945. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar