Cracking the Bluetooth PIN by Yaniv Shaked and Avishai Wool (2005)
Discriminative Approach for Transform Based Image Restoration Yacov Hel-Or Doron Shaked Gil...
-
Upload
augustine-harris -
Category
Documents
-
view
226 -
download
1
Transcript of Discriminative Approach for Transform Based Image Restoration Yacov Hel-Or Doron Shaked Gil...
Discriminative Approach forTransform Based Image
Restoration
Yacov Hel-Or Doron Shaked Gil Ben-Artzi
SIAM – Imaging Science, July 2008
The Interdisciplinary CenterIsrael
HP LasBar-Ilan Univ.
Israel
- Can we clean Lena?
Motivation – Image denoisingMotivation – Image denoising
nxy
,0~ Nn
• All the above deal with degraded images.• Their reconstruction requires solving an
inverse problem
• Inpainting
• De-blurring
• De-noising
• De-mosaicing
Broader ScopeBroader Scope
Key point: Stat. Prior of Natural Images
xPxyPyxPxxx
maxargmaxargˆ Bayesian estimation:
likelihood prior
Problem: P(x) is complicated to model
form Mumford & Huang, 2000
– Defined over a huge dimensional space. – Sparsely sampled.– Known to be non Gaussian.
A prior p.d.f. of a 2x2 image patch
The Wavelet Transform Marginalizes Image PriorThe Wavelet Transform Marginalizes Image Prior
• Observation1: The Wavelet transform tends to de-correlate pixel dependencies of natural images.
W.T.
xBxB i
iBiB xPxP
• Observation2: The statistics of natural images are homogeneous.
iBibandiBi xPxP
Share the same statistics
Donoho & Johnston 94 Donoho & Johnston 94 Wavelet Shrinkage Denoising: Unitary CaseWavelet Shrinkage Denoising: Unitary Case
• Degradation Model:
• MAP estimation in the transform domain
BBBnxy
BB
xB yxPx
B
maxargˆ
,0~ NnB
• The Wavelet domain diagonalizes the system.
• The estimation of a coefficient depends solely on its own measured value
• This leads to a very useful property:
Modify coefficients via scalar mapping functions
iBkx̂i
Bky
i
BkiB
kkyx ˆ
where Bk stands for the k’th band
yy
Shrinkage Pipe-lineShrinkage Pipe-line
Image domain
Transformdomain
+
xiB
yiB
B3 B2
B1
BT1
BT1
BT2
BT2
BT3
BT3
Image domain
Bkyy k(Bky)
x
BTkk(Bky) x= BT
kk(Bky)
Result
BT1
BT1
BT2
BT2
BT3
BT3B2
B1
B3
Wavelet Shrinkage as aWavelet Shrinkage as aLocally Adaptive Patch Based MethodLocally Adaptive Patch Based Method
KxK
xiB
yiB
DCT
DCT-1 xiB
yiB
xiB
yiB
WDCT
Unitary Transform
• Can be viewed as shrinkage de-noising in a Unitary Transform (Windowed DCT).
xiB
yiBWDCT-1
KxK bands
xiB
yiB
DCT
DCT-1 xiB
yiB
KxK
Alternative Approach: Sliding WindowAlternative Approach: Sliding Window
xiB
yiB
UWDCT
Redundant Transform
• Can be viewed as shrinkage de-noising in a redundant transform (U.D. Windowed DCT).
xiB
yiBUWDCT-1
• Descriptive approach: The shape of the mapping function j depends solely on Pj and the noise variance .
How to Design the Mapping Functions?How to Design the Mapping Functions?
jBandi
iBx yw
Modeling marginal p.d.f.
of band j
noise variance () noise variance ()
jMAPobjective
MAPobjective
• Commonly Pj(yB) are approximated by GGD:
psxexP ~ for p<1
from: Simoncelli 99
from: Simoncelli 99
Hard Thresholding
Soft Thresholding
Linear Wiener Filtering
MAP estimators for GGD model with three different exponents. The noise is additive Gaussian, with variance one third that of the signal.
• Due to its simplicity Wavelet Shrinkage became extremely popular:
– Thousands of applications.
– Thousands of related papers
• What about efficiency?
– Denoising performance of the original Wavelet Shrinkage technique is far from the state-of-the-art results.
• Why?
– Wavelet coefficients are not really independent.
Recent DevelopmentsRecent Developments• Since the original approach suggested by D&J
significant improvements were achieved:
Original Shrinkage
Redundant RepresentationJoint (Local) Coefficient
Modeling
• Overcomplete transform• Scalar MFs• Simple• Not considered state-of-the-art
• Multivariate MFs
• Complicated
• Superior results
1. Mapping functions:– Naively borrowed from the unitary case.
2. Independence assumption:– In the overcomplete case, the wavelet coefficients are
inherently dependent.
3. Minimization domain:– For the unitary case MFs are optimized in the transform
domain. This is incorrect in the overcomplete case (Parseval is not valid anymore).
4. Unsubstantiated– Improvements are shown empirically.
What’s wrong with existing redundant What’s wrong with existing redundant Shrinkage?Shrinkage?
Questions we are going to addressQuestions we are going to address
• How to design optimal MFs for redundant bases.
• What is the role of redundancy.
• What is the role of the domain in which the MFs
are optimized.
• We show that the shrinkage approach is
comparable to state-of-the-art approaches where
MFs are correctly designed.
Optimal Mapping Function:Optimal Mapping Function:
Traditional approach: Descriptive
kBi
iBx
kMAPobjective
MAPobjective
x
Modeling marginal p.d.f. of band k
Optimal Mapping Function:Optimal Mapping Function:
Suggested approach: Discriminative
• Off line: Design MFs with respect to a given set of examples: {xe
i} and {yei}
• On line: Apply the obtained MFs to new noisy signals.
ex eyDenoisingAlgorithm
k
ey B1B1B1B1BkBk
Option 1Option 1: Transform domain –: Transform domain – independent bandsindependent bands
exkB
y
kBx
B1B1B1B1BT
kBT
k
ex B1B1B1B1BkBk
exB1B1B1B1BT
kBT
kkBy
kBx
k i
e
ikkeik yBxB
2
1
+
+
ey B1B1B1B1BkBk
exkB
y
kBx
B1B1B1B1BT
kBT
k
ex B1B1B1B1BkBk
exB1B1B1B1BT
kBT
kkBy
kBx
+
+
k i
e
ikkTk
eik
Tk yBBxBB
2
2
Option 2Option 2: Spatial domain –: Spatial domain – independent bandsindependent bands
ey B1B1B1B1BkBk
exkB
y
kBx
B1B1B1B1BT
kBT
k
ex B1B1B1B1BkBk
exB1B1B1B1BT
kBT
kkBy
kBx
+
+
Option 3Option 3: Spatial domain –: Spatial domain – joint bandsjoint bands
i k
e
ikkTk
ei yBBx
2
3
The Role of Optimization DomainThe Role of Optimization Domain
• Theorem 1: For unitary transforms and for any set of {k}:
• Theorem 2: For over-complete
(tight-frame) and for any set of {k}:
123
123
=
Unitary v.s. OvercompleteUnitary v.s. OvercompleteSpatial v.s. Transform DomainSpatial v.s. Transform Domain
Over-completeUnitary
Spatial domain
Transform domain
=
>
>
=
Is it Justified to optimized in the transform domain?Is it Justified to optimized in the transform domain?
1 3
)(1 Unitary
32
2
• In the transform domains we minimize an upper envelope.
• It is preferable to minimize in the spatial domain.
• Problem: How to optimize non-linear MFs ?
• Solution: Span the non-linear {k} using a linear sum of basis functions.
• Finding {k} boils down to finding the span coefficients (closed form).
Mapping functionsMapping functions
y
k(y)
Optimal Design of Non-Linear MF’sOptimal Design of Non-Linear MF’s
For more details: see Hel-Or & Shaked: IEEE-IP, Feb 2008
yby ii
kik
• Let zR be a real value in a bounded interval [a,b).
• We divide [a,b) into M segments q=[q0,q1,...,qM]
• w.l.o.g. assume z[qj-1,qj)
• Define residue r(z)=(z-qj-1)/(qj-qj-1)
a bz
q0 q1 qMqj-1 qj
r(z)
z=r(z) qj+(1-r(z)) qj-1z=[0,,0,1-r(z),r(z),0,]q = Sq(z)q
The Slice Transform The Slice Transform
• We define a vectorial extension:
• We call this the
Slice Transform (SLT) of z.
qq zSz
zqS
0,r,r-1,0 ii zz
ith row
The SLTThe SLT PropertiesProperties
• Substitution property: Substituting the boundary vector q with a different vector p forms a piecewise linear mapping.
=Sq(z)
zq0
q1
q2
q3
q4
q1 q2 q3 q4
qp
p0
p1
p2
p3
p4
zz’
z
z
z’
Back to the MFs DesignBack to the MFs Design• We approximate the non-linear {k} with piece-wise linear functions:
• Finding {pk} is a standard LS problem with a
closed form solution!
i k
ke
ikqTk
ei yBSBx
k
2
p
kq pk
yBSyB kkk
ResultsResults
Training ImagesTraining Images
Tested ImagesTested Images
Simulation setupSimulation setup
• Transform used: Undecimated DCT• Noise: Additive i.i.d. Gaussian • Number of bins in SLT: 15• Number of bands: 3x3 .. 10x10
MFs for UDCT 8x8 (i,i) bands, i=1..4, =20
OptionOption 1
OptionOption 2
OptionOption 3
Why considering joint band dependencies produces non-monotonic MFs ?
image space
noisy image
Unitary MF
Redundant MF
Comparing psnr results for 8x8 undecimated DCT, sigma=20.
barbara boat fingerprint house lena peppers256 27.5
28
28.5
29
29.5
30
30.5
31
31.5
32
32.5
33
psnr
Method 1
Method 2
Method 3
8x8 UDCT=10
8x8 UDCT=20
8x8 UDCT=10
1 2 5 10 15 20 25
30
35
40
45
50
s.t.d.
PS
NR
barbara
1 2 5 10 15 20 25
30
35
40
45
50
s.t.d.
PS
NR
boat
1 2 5 10 15 20 25
30
35
40
45
50
s.t.d.
PS
NR
fingerprint
1 2 5 10 15 20 25
30
35
40
45
50
s.t.d.
PS
NR
house
1 2 5 10 15 20 25
30
35
40
45
50
s.t.d.
PS
NR
lena
1 2 5 10 15 20 25
30
35
40
45
50
s.t.d.
PS
NR
peppers
Comparison with BLS-GSM
1 2 5 10 15 20 25
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
s.t.d.
PS
NR
proposed method
GSM method
Comparison with BLS-GSM
Other Degradation ModelsOther Degradation Models
JPEG Artifact RemovalJPEG Artifact Removal
JPEG Artifact RemovalJPEG Artifact Removal
Image SharpeningImage Sharpening
Image SharpeningImage Sharpening
ConclusionsConclusions
• New and simple scheme for over-complete transform based denoising.
• MFs are optimized in a discriminative manner.
• Linear formulation of non-linear minimization.
• Eliminating the need for modeling complex statistical prior in high-dim. space.
• Seamlessly applied to other degradation problems as long as scalar MFs are used for reconstruction.
Recent ResultsRecent Results
• What is the best transform to be used (for a given image or for a given set)?
Thank You