4.7 Article

Explored Normalized Cut With Random Walk Refining Term for Image Segmentation

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING
卷 31, 期 -, 页码 2893-2906

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIP.2022.3162475

关键词

Image segmentation; Image edge detection; Task analysis; Computational modeling; Analytical models; Partitioning algorithms; Object segmentation; Normalized Cut (NCut); image segmentation; unsupervised learning; graph signal processing

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program Intergovernmental International Science and Technology Innovation Cooperation [2021YFE0101600]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61701036]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes an ENCUT model that establishes a balanced graph model by adopting a meaningful-loop and a k-step random walk to enhance small object segmentation. The model is further improved by adding a new RWRT that adds local attention to the segmentation of twigs. Experimental results show that the model achieves state-of-the-art performance among NCut-based segmentation models.
The Normalized Cut (NCut) model is a popular graph-based model for image segmentation. But it suffers from the excessive normalization problem and weakens the small object and twig segmentation. In this paper, we propose an Explored Normalized Cut (ENCut) model that establishes a balance graph model by adopting a meaningful-loop and a k-step random walk, which reduces the energy of small salient region, so as to enhance the small object segmentation. To improve the twig segmentation, our ENCut model is further enhanced by a new Random Walk Refining Term (RWRT) that adds local attention to our model with the help of an un-supervising random walk. Finally, a move-making based strategy is developed to efficiently solve the ENCut model with RWRT. Experiments on three standard datasets indicate that our model can achieve state-of-the-art results among the NCut-based segmentation models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据