Gradient descent approaches to image registration

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511777684.013

12 - Gradient descent approaches to image registration

from PART III - Feature Matching and Strategies for Image Registration

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2011

Arlene A. Cole-Rhodes and

Roger D. Eastman

Edited by

Jacqueline Le Moigne ,

Nathan S. Netanyahu and

Roger D. Eastman

Show author details

Arlene A. Cole-Rhodes: Affiliation:
Morgan State University, Maryland
Roger D. Eastman: Affiliation:
Loyola University, Maryland
Jacqueline Le Moigne: Affiliation:
NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center
Nathan S. Netanyahu: Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University, Israel and University of Maryland, College Park
Roger D. Eastman: Affiliation:
Loyola University Maryland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract

This chapter covers a general class of image registration algorithms that apply numerical optimization to similarity measures relating to cumulative functions of image intensities. An example of these algorithms is an algorithm minimizing the least-squares difference in image intensities due to an iterative gradient-descent approach. Algorithms in this class, which work well in 2D and 3D, can be applied simultaneously to multiple bands in an image pair and images with significant radiometric differences to accurately recover subpixel transformations. The algorithms discussed differ in the specific similarity measure, the numerical method used for optimization, and the actual computation used. The similarity measure can vary from a measure that uses a radiometric function to account for nonlinear image intensity differences in the least-squares equations, to one that is based on mutual information, which accounts for image intensity differences not accounted for by a standard functional model. The numerical methods considered are basic recursive descent, a method based on Levenberg-Marquardt's technique, and Spall's algorithm. This chapter relates to the above registration algorithms and classifies them by their various elements. It also analyzes the image classes for which variants of these algorithms apply best.

Introduction

We consider in this chapter a class of image registration algorithms that apply numerical techniques for optimizing some similarity measures that relate only to the image intensities (or a function of the image intensities) of an image pair.

Type: Chapter
Information: Image Registration for Remote Sensing , pp. 265 - 275

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777684.013 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, S. and Matthews, I. (2004). Lucas-Kanade 20 years on: A unifying framework. International Journal of Computer Vision, 56(3), 221–255.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cole-Rhodes, A., Johnson, K., Moigne, J., and Zavorin, I. (2003). Multiresolution registration of remote sensing imagery by optimization of mutual information using a stochastic gradient. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 12(12), 1495–1511.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Collignon, A., Maes, F., Delaere, D., Vandermeulen, D., Suetens, P., and Marchal, G. (1995). Automated multimodality image registration based on information theory. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging, Ile de Berder, France; Computational Imaging and Vision, Y. Bizais, C. Barillot, and R. Di Paola, eds. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 263–274.Google Scholar

Dowson, N. and Bowden, R. (2006). A unifying framework for mutual information methods for use in non-linear optimisation. In Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer Vision, Graz, Austria, Part I; Lecture Notes in Computer Science, A. Leonardis, H. Bischof, and A. Pinz, eds. Berlin: Springer, Vol. 3951, pp. 365–378.Google Scholar

Eastman, R. and Moigne, J. (2001). Gradient descent techniques for multitemporal and multi-sensor image registration of remotely sensed imagery. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Information Fusion, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

Irani, M. and Peleg, S. (1991). Improving resolution by image registration. CVGIP: Graphical Models and Image Processing, 53(3), 231–239.Google Scholar

Kern, J. and Pattichis, M. (2007). Robust multispectral image registration using mutual-information models. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 45(5), 1494–1505.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lucas, B. D. and Kanade, T. (1981). An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision. In Proceedings of the DARPA Image Understanding Workshop, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 121–130.Google Scholar

Maes, F., Vandermeulen, D., and Suetens, P. (1999). Comparative evaluation of multiresolution optimization strategies for multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. Medical Image Analysis, 3(4), 272–286.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pluim, J. P., Maintz, J. B., and Viergever, M. A. (2003). Mutual information-based registration of medical images: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 22(8), 986–1004.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Press, W., Teukolsky, S., Vetterling, W., and Flannery, B. (2007). Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Roche, A., Malandain, G., Pennec, X., and Ayache, N. (1998). The correlation ratio as a new similarity measure for multimodal image registration. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, Cambridge, MA; Lecture Notes in Computer Science, W. M. Wells III, A. C. F. Colchester, and S. L. Delp, eds. Berlin: Springer, Vol. 1496, pp. 1115–1124.Google Scholar

Spall, J. C. (2003). Introduction to Stochastic Search and Optimization: Estimation, Simulation, and Control. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRef Google Scholar

Studholme, C., Hill, D. L., and Hawkes, D. J. (1995). Automated 3D registration of truncated MR and CT images of the head. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference, Birmingham, UK, pp. 27–36.Google Scholar

Thévenaz, P. and Unser, M. (2000). Optimization of mutual information for multiresolution image registration. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 9(12), 2083–2099.Google Scholar PubMed

Thévenaz, P., Ruttimann, U. E., and Unser, M. (1998). A pyramid approach to subpixel registration based on intensity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 7(1), 27–41.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Viola, P. and WellsIII, W. M. (1995). Alignment by maximization of mutual information. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computer Vision, Cambridge, MA, pp. 16–23.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zitová, B. and Flusser, J. (2003). Image registration methods: A survey. Image and Vision Computing, 21, 977–1000.CrossRef Google Scholar