The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Bias Error Analysis of the Generalised Hough Transform

Bias Error Analysis of the Generalised Hough Transform
Bias Error Analysis of the Generalised Hough Transform
The generalised Hough transform (GHT) extends the Hough transform (HT) to the extraction of arbitrary shapes. In practice, the performance of both techniques differs considerably. The literature suggests that, whilst the HT can provide accurate results with significant levels of noise and occlusion, the performance of the GHT is in fact much more sensitive to noise. In this paper we extend previous error analyses by considering the possible causes of bias errors of the GHT. Our analysis considers both formulation and implementation issues. First, we compare the formulation of the GHT against the general formulation of the standard HT. This shows that, in fact, the GHT definition increases the robustness of the standard HT formulation. Then, in order to explain this paradoxical situation we consider four possible sources of errors that are introduced due to the implementation of the GHT: (i) errors in the computation of gradient direction; (ii) errors due to false evidence attributed to the range of values defined by the point spread function; (iii) errors due to the contribution of false evidence by background points; and (iv) errors due to the non-analytic (i.e., tabular) representation used to store the properties of the model. After considering the effects of each source of error we conclude that: (i) in theory, the GHT is actually more robust than the standard HT; (ii) that clutter and occlusion have a reduced effect in the GHT with respect to the HT; and (iii) that a significant source of error can be due to the use of a non-analytic representation. A non-analytic representation defines a discrete point spread function that is mapped into a discrete accumulator array. The discrete point spread function is scaled and rotated in the gathering process, increasing the amount of inaccurate evidence. Experimental results demonstrate that the analysis of errors is congruent with practical implementation issues. Our results demonstrate that the GHT is more robust than the HT when the non-analytic representation is replaced by an analytic representation and when evidence is gathered using a suitable range of values in gradient direction. As such, we show that errors in the GHT are due to implementation issues and that the technique actually provides a more powerful model-based shape extraction approach than has previously been acknowledged.
25-42
Aguado, Alberto S.
a61a53d9-fa7e-41c8-969f-abd1375ffe3c
Montiel, M. Eugenia
d4dd42e0-dc8d-41e2-a9ab-8db5842f8a26
Nixon, Mark S.
2b5b9804-5a81-462a-82e6-92ee5fa74e12
Aguado, Alberto S.
a61a53d9-fa7e-41c8-969f-abd1375ffe3c
Montiel, M. Eugenia
d4dd42e0-dc8d-41e2-a9ab-8db5842f8a26
Nixon, Mark S.
2b5b9804-5a81-462a-82e6-92ee5fa74e12

Aguado, Alberto S., Montiel, M. Eugenia and Nixon, Mark S. (2000) Bias Error Analysis of the Generalised Hough Transform. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 12 (1), 25-42.

Record type: Article

Abstract

The generalised Hough transform (GHT) extends the Hough transform (HT) to the extraction of arbitrary shapes. In practice, the performance of both techniques differs considerably. The literature suggests that, whilst the HT can provide accurate results with significant levels of noise and occlusion, the performance of the GHT is in fact much more sensitive to noise. In this paper we extend previous error analyses by considering the possible causes of bias errors of the GHT. Our analysis considers both formulation and implementation issues. First, we compare the formulation of the GHT against the general formulation of the standard HT. This shows that, in fact, the GHT definition increases the robustness of the standard HT formulation. Then, in order to explain this paradoxical situation we consider four possible sources of errors that are introduced due to the implementation of the GHT: (i) errors in the computation of gradient direction; (ii) errors due to false evidence attributed to the range of values defined by the point spread function; (iii) errors due to the contribution of false evidence by background points; and (iv) errors due to the non-analytic (i.e., tabular) representation used to store the properties of the model. After considering the effects of each source of error we conclude that: (i) in theory, the GHT is actually more robust than the standard HT; (ii) that clutter and occlusion have a reduced effect in the GHT with respect to the HT; and (iii) that a significant source of error can be due to the use of a non-analytic representation. A non-analytic representation defines a discrete point spread function that is mapped into a discrete accumulator array. The discrete point spread function is scaled and rotated in the gathering process, increasing the amount of inaccurate evidence. Experimental results demonstrate that the analysis of errors is congruent with practical implementation issues. Our results demonstrate that the GHT is more robust than the HT when the non-analytic representation is replaced by an analytic representation and when evidence is gathered using a suitable range of values in gradient direction. As such, we show that errors in the GHT are due to implementation issues and that the technique actually provides a more powerful model-based shape extraction approach than has previously been acknowledged.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: 2000
Organisations: Southampton Wireless Group

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 251946
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/251946
PURE UUID: 65053f34-a6df-4bf5-a22c-cb5358433abb
ORCID for Mark S. Nixon: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5934

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 18 Nov 1999
Last modified: 06 Jun 2018 13:17

Export record

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×