ICACSIS 2015
Evolutionary Segment Selection for
Higher-order Conditional Random Fields in
Semantic Image Segmentation
Novian Habibie*l , Vektor Dewanto*2, Jogie Chandra*l, Fariz Ikhwantci1, Harry Budi Santoso1, Wisnu Jatmikol
1 Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia; 2Department of Computer Science, Bogor Agricultural University
Email: novian.habibie@ui.ac.id.vektor.dewanto@gmail.com
Abstract-One promising approach for pixel-wise semantic
segmentation is based on higher-order Conditional Random
Fields (CRFs). We aim to selectively choose segments for the
higher-order CRFs in semantic segmentation. To this end, we
formulate the selection as an optimization problem. We propose
three optimization criteria in relation to the selected segments,
namely: a) averaged goodness, b) coverage area and c) non
overlapped area. Essentially, we desire to have best segments
with maximum coverage area and maximum non-overlapped
area. We apply two evolutionary optimization algorithms, namely:
the genetic algorithm (GA) and the particle swarm optimization
(PSO). The goodness of segments is estimated using the Latent
Dirichlet Allocation approach. Experiment results show that
semantic segmentation with GA-or-PSO-selected segments yields
competitive semantic segmentation accuracy in comparison to
that of naively using all segments. Moreover, the fewer number
of segments used in semantic segmentation speeds up its compu
tation time up to six times faster.
1. INTRODUCTION
Semantic segmentation aims to label every pixel in an
image with a semantic object-class label from some predefined
set. In contrast, (standard) segmentation produces segments
without object-class labels. One promising approach for pixel
wise semantic segmentation is based on Maximum A Posteriori
(MAP) and higher-order Conditional Random Fields (CRFs)
frameworks as in [1], [2], [3]. In particular, higher-order CRFs
for semantic segmentation rely on segments to compute the
optimal pixel labeling. The fact is that the more the number of
segments used, the longer the computation time of semantic
segmentation. The number of segments, however, does not nec
essarily corresponds to higher semantic segmentation accuracy.
We observe that there is no perfect segmentation for
all objects in an image. Some produce under-segmentation,
i.e. a segment contains more than one objects. While some
yield over-segmentation, i.e one object is spread over several
segments. Additionally, different segment generators gives
different segments. This surely affects higher-order CRF-based
semantic segmention in terms of its accuracy and computation
time. As a result, we are motivated to perform multiple
segmentations on an image in order to obtain a large number
of segments. We expect that some of them are near-perfect
segments, which contain mostly one object-class label.
We aim to selectively choose segments from a bag of
segments yielded by multiple segmentations. The selected seg
ments are then used for higher-order CRFs in semantic image
*These authors contributed equally
249
segmentation. To this end, we formulate the segment selection
as an optimization problem. We propose three optimization cri
teria in relation to the selected segments, namely: a) averaged
goodness, b) coverage area, and c) overlapped area. Essentially,
we desire to have best segments with maximum coverage area
and maximum non-overlapped area. The goodness of segments
is estimated using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation approach;
more in section IV. We employ two evolutionary optimization
algorithms to perform segment selection, namely: the genetic
algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO). Fig. 1
depicts the pipeline of CRF-based semantic segmentation with
our proposed segment selection.
Experiment results show that semantic segmentation with
GA-or-PSO-selected segments yields competitive semantic
segmentation accuracy in comparison to that of naively using
all segments. In particular, we achieve the semantic segmen
tation accuracy of 82.1 30%, 82.412% and 82.490% from
semantic segmentation using GA-selected, PSO-selected and
all segments, respectively. Moreover, the fewer number of
segments used in semantic segmentation (approximately one
third of all segments) speeds up its computation time up to six
times faster. It also is proven that the goodness of segments can
be well estimated via the Latent Dirichlet Allocation approach.
II. R ELAT ED WORKS
Gould [4] uses segments as nodes on Markov Random
Field models. Segments used on that method based on non
overlap segmentation. Pantofaru et al. [5] also uses multiple
segmentation for semantic segmentation. They found that size
of segments can give a tradeoff to process of finding object's
border. Bigger segments contain more feature and information
of object, but harder to determine object's border. Otherwise,
segment with small size can define object's border easily but
only contains small amount of information. To overcome that,
Pantofaru using Intersection of Region (loR) method to obtain
border of object.
Kumar and Koller [6] also use segments to do a semantic
segmentation. They said that result of unsupervised segment
generator is not very well. They propose a method to gen
erating segments by utilizing its pixel with energy function.
This method will generates segments as an integer program.
Morover, this method makes generated segments can adapt to
energy formulation function from labeling process.
Another approach to use segments to utilize semantic
segmentation were done by Kohli et al. [7]. They use segments
978-1-5090-0363-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE
 ICACSIS 2015
Multiple segmentation
r-=-l Bag of Segments
Bag of
Semantic Segmentation
-.

'-------'
Selection
,-------,
Selected Segments Annotation
r------'
Gross
..
.. Evolutionary
...
CRF-based
semantic
. Segment
Selector

segmentation,
Cow

Robustpn

Fig. 1: The pipeline of CRF-based semantic segmentation with our proposed evolutionary segment selection.

as one of potentials used in CRF-based energy function.

Compared to previous mentioned methods, this method can
use multiple overlapping segments to enhance its accuracy.
Because of this approach provided more informations because
of segments variety ,we use this as our baseline. However,
this method use all generated segments instead only use a
good quality segments. Because of this problem, our proposed
method focus on segment selection process.

III. CRF-BASED SEMANTIC SEGMENTATION

The goal of semantic segmentation is to label every pixel

in an image with a semantic object-class label from some
predefined set, i.e. Y E L. One promising approach for pixel
wise semantic image segmentation is based on the Maximum A
Posteriori (MAP) and higher-order Conditional Random Fields
(CRFs) frameworks as in [1], [2], [3]. In particular, a vector
of optimal pixel labels, i.e. y*, for an image is formulated as: Fig. 2: The graphical model of CRFs in a 3-by-3 pixel image, where
Xi is an observed variable, while Yi is a random variable (an object
y* = argmaxyELP(ylx) = argminyELE(y) (1) class label for the corresponding Xi). There are two segments (colored
green and blue) as higher-order cliques.
where P(ylx) is the probability of unobserved pixel labels y
given observations x and E(y) is an energy formulation.

Furthermore,
respectively. While, another segment 82 contains 100% dog
E(y) =
LiEV 'l/Ji(Yi) LiEV,jENi 'l/Ji,j(Yi, Yj)
'
+
v
'
pixels. Then, it can be inferred that a segment 82 is "better"
than 81.
Unary Term Pairwise Term

LCEC 'l/Jc(yc)
To compute the probability that a segment contains some
(2) pixel labels, we draw ideas from the Natural Language Pro
+
-------- cessing (NLP) domain. Essentially, in NLP, Latent Dirichelt
Higher-order Term
Allocation (LDA) [9] is used to discover hidden topic in a
where V is a set of random variables associated with pixel document. For instance, a sentence of "I like to eat bananas
labels, Ni returns a set of neighbour pixels of i, and C is a and carrots" contains
100% topic 1, while "Bunnies and kittens
set of higher-order cliques, i.e. cliques whose size is more are cute" contains
100% topic 2. On the other hand, "This
than two. A clique is essentially a collection of random hamster munching on a piece of carrot" contains 50% topic 1
variables. We remark that this work aims to selectively choose and 50% topic 2.
segments to become member cliques of C. For the derivation
of equation 1 and 2, we refers the readers to [8]. Fig. 2 We use the LDA to measure such segment goodness via
illustrates the graphical model of the aforementioned CRFs, the following analogies.
in which there are two higher-order cliques (segments). Hidden Topics M Object-Classes
Documents M Segments
IV. ESTIMATING SEGMENT GOODNESS Words M (Affine Regions + Sift Descriptor).

We hy pothesize that a good segment should contains one Hence, a "good" segment has a high probability for a hidden
single object-class with high confidence. Let a segment 81 topic. In other words, the goodness level is proportional to
contains 50%, 40%, and 10% of dog, sofa and unknown pixels, maximum probability of a hidden topic given a document.

250 978-1-5090-0363-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE

 ICACSIS 2015
Similar method has ever been proposed by Russell et al.
in [10].
Fig. 3 shows the pipeline for predicting segment goodness
via LDA. In the training phase, firstly, we have to extract
and cluster visual words of a segment. In particular,Harris
Affine regions [11] define those visual words in the form
of SIFT representations [12]. This makes the visual words
are invariant to scales and viewing angles. Secondly, we
generate a training corpus (a collection of documents). It is
then used for constructing the LDA model of training data
via Gibbs sampling estimation [13]. The LDA model gives us
the word-topic distributions, p(wordwltopiCt),
document distributions, p(topictldocumentd).
phase, we also performs word extraction up to generating
testing corpus. Afterwards, Gibbs sampling inference is carried
out for previously unseen testing data. The inference outputs
are almost the same as those of the trained LDA model except
that the information is of the testing data.
v. EV OLUTIONARY SEGMENT SELECTION
We formulate segment selection as an optimization prob
lem. Because the number of (to be selected) segments can
be very large, we argue that stochastic optimization methods
are more suitable than the deteministic ones, with the cost
of merely approximately-optimal solutions. Particularly, we
use two evolutionary optimization algorithms, namely: the
genetic algorithm (GA) and the particle swarm optimization
(PSO) [14]. Fig. 4 shows the pipeline of our proposed evolu
tionary segment selection for higher-order CRFs in semantic
segmentation.
A. The representation of an individual
We use a binary string representation to represent an
individual. One bit of a string represent a segment. If a
segment is selected, then the corresponding bit has a value
of 1. Otherwise, it is zero-ed. The number of bits in a string is
equal to the number of segments from multiple segmentations
on an image. Figure 4 (left-part) illustrates the encoding of
this representation.
B. The fitness function
For optimal segments for higher-order CRFs,we propose
three optimization criteria, which are related to the selected
segments, namely: a) averaged goodness Oag, b) coverage
area Oca, and c) non-overlapped area Ona. In essence, we
desire to have best segments with maximum coverage area and
maximum non-overlapped area.
As a result, for an individual i (represented in a binary
string), we formulate the fitness function f as follows.
f(i) = oag (i) + oca (i) + ona (i)
()
0 ()
0 ,and Ona ( )
WIth Oag 1 = one(i)' Oca 1 = np 1 =
where:
g(i) =
Ei E i maXjEO (P(j Ii = 1)), where
of object classes
one(i) returns the number of selected segments in
i.e. bits that have a value of 1
np is the number of pixels in an image
Iset(i) I returns the number of unique pixels of selected
segments
Ilist(i) I returns the number of pixels of selected
segments, pixel duplication may occur
C. Evolutionary algorithms
1) Genetic Algorithm (GA): is a metaheuristic algorithm
that solves optimization problems with evolution processes
inspired from the nature. GA represents the search space as
chromosomes of an individual. A chromosom contains the
solution configuration.
and the topic
In the testing Chromosomes evolve in every generation and evaluated by
a fitness function to measure its qUality. Evolution process ends
when fitness value is not changing anymore, which means it
reach the convergence state. A chromosome that evolves last
becomes the solution configuration.
In essence, GA have three main processes: crossover,
mutation, and selection. Crossover combines one chromosome
with another chromosome to generate a new configuration.
Mutation changes some part of chromosomes randomly to
increase chromosomes' variation. Selection chooses some best
chromosomes to use in the next evolution process.
2) Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO): is an optimization
algorithm inspired by movement a group of animals search
ing food by swarming/flocking around [15]. Essentially, PSO
works by spreading particles in search space to find the most
optimum solution. It evaluates solutions using fitness function
and move all particles based on its velocity. The velocity of
a particle is calculated based on a) the distance between the
particle and the best solution it has found (the local best) and
b) the distance between the particle and the best solution of all
particles (the global best). This process repeats until its fitness
value converge or it reaches its iteration limit.
The PSO algoritm requires of two main functions as
follows.
X+l
.
= x + v+l
"
(4)
v:+1 = (}vf +arand(O, l)(x;Ct) -x!)+.Brand(O, l)(g;Ct) -x!) (5)
Equation 4 is for updating set of particle's new position in
search space x+1 using set of particle's current positions x!
and set of particle's velocity V;+l. Meanwhile, equation 5
is for updating particle's new velocity V;+ l based on its
previous velocity vi x;(t) and
and best position (local best
t
global best g;( ). () is inertial value, a and f3 are constants of
particle acceleration for local and global best,and rand(O, 1)
is random function which produce decimal value between 0
and 1.
Kennedy and Eberhart introduced an alternate version of
(3) PSO which can be used in discrete search space called Binary
0 Iset(i)1 PSO (BPSO) [16], in which a particle is represented as binary
list(i)' string contains 0 or 1. Each element of binary string is an
occurrence status of a solution element of specific solution
0 is a set (1:exist,0 not exist). Meanwhile, velocity represented as set
of probability value in decimal. It represents probability each
i, element change from 0 to 1 and vice versa. Probability value
calculated by threshold function in logistic transformation
S(Vi,j) : if(randO S(Vij) Xij = 1 else Xij = 0 where
251 978-1-5090-0363-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE
 ICACSIS 2015

/ '" Segments with goodness

Training Data: / LDA ModAl: '"
SAgmAnts with gound.
Extract Generate
P(topiclword) '\
truth pixel label.
Visual Words Trailing Corpus
'{' (topiel document}/ p(tl s[1 ])=0.8
" .
Training Phase
p(ll s[2J)=O.6

p(ll s(3))={l2
Inf&r&nce distribution of
Testing Data: Extract
Segments
---t., topic over document
Visual Words
(using Gibbs Sampilogl
p(tl s[n]) :0.7

Fig. 3: The pipeline for predicting segment goodness via LDA.

Mapping into Evolutionary Bag of selected Semantic

A bag of n segments
a binary string Segment Selection segments Segmentation
1>5[01

bs[1]
Population of m individual

bs[21
m[O; I' 1 0 1 '1 1'1
mi'; 10 I Ia I
n 11

ml I I. 101 ..... 101

L-------T-----t:= bslo-1]
Fig. 4: The pipeline of our proposed evolutionary segment selection for higher-order CRFs in semantic segmentation.

SO is sigmoid function S(t)

l+ -t and
= randO
is a random where Co is a dissimilarity rate of current state with previous
function which produce decimal value in range 0 to 1. state xt-1, Cl and C2 are respectively similarit r rate of current
Changing the domain of PSO from continuous to discrete
state with local best x;(t) and global best g;(t . After normal
ization process, those functions become :
search space have several drawbacks which will affect its
performance. Some of them are different definition of velocity P'{Xit+1 - O}
and memoryless state changing [17]. To overcome those prob P{XiHI O} - _
(8)
- - p'{X!+1 = O} + p'{X+1 = 1}
lems, there's an alternative version of BPSO which based on
proportion probability by Chen[17].

This version of BPSO reform equation 4 and 5 using

- 1}
P'{Xit+1 -
P{XiHI - 1} -
- _
(9)
elimination process to substitute parameter of velocity and p'{X!+1 = O} + p'{X+1 = 1}
learning rate with parameters of similarity probability. After
t+l
elimination process, function for generating new state X VI. EXP ERIMENT RESULT S
based on current state xt of particles defined as:
A. Setups
p'{x+1 = o} =rand(O, 1)(1 - xD + eorand(O, 1)X!-1
We use the MSRC-21 dataset that has 591 images with
+ c rand(O, 1)(1 - x;(t) (6) 21 object classes [1]. All images are utilized for experiments
I
+ c2rand(O, 1)(1 g;(t) _
on estimating segment goodness. For evaluating our proposed
segment selection for semantic segmentation, only images that
have accurate ground-truth annotations are used, i.e. 93 images
p'{x!+1 = 1} =rand(O, 1)x + corand(O, 1)(1 - X!-I) from [18]. We utilize a standard PC with Intel i7 3.4 GHz and
(7)
+ cIrand(O, 1)x;(t) + c2rand(O, 1)g;(t) 16 GB RAM that runs the Linux Ubuntu 14.04.

252 978-1-5090-0363-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE

 ICACSIS 2015
To build a bag of segments from an image, we perform
multiple segmentation, employing Scikit-Image [19]. Con
cretely, on each image, we run several segmentation parameters
as follows.
SLIC [20] (clustering method with modified K
means), with parameters of numbers of segments:
{3,4,6,...,30},
Quickshift [21] (aproximates from mean-shift
kemelization), with parameters of max distance:
{10,1 5,20,...,80}
Felzenswalbs method [22] (a graph based method),
with parameters of scale: {100,226, 3 52,...,2 500}
For estimating segment goodness via LDA, we utilize the Gibss
LDA++ [23] and the extractor of Affine-Region plus Sift
Descriptor [24]. Furthermore, we set LDA hyperparameters
(a) With respect to topic 6 (intrepreted as Flower)
to O! = 0.5 and (3 = 0.5 as in [10], and 2000 visual words via
the Elbow method.

In the GA-based segment selection, we set a fixed number

of individuals in a population per generation to 80, with a
maximum of 100 population generation. We use one-point
crossover with a rate of 90% and inversion mutation with
a rate of 2%. On the other hand, for PSO-based segment
selection, we obtain the optimal hyperparameter values as
follows: Co = 0.5, C1 = 0.5, C2 = 1.0, 5 particles, 100
iteration. To minimize the bias of random numbers, we repeat
the evolutionary segment selection up to several times. We
benefit from the evolutionary-algoritm implementation in the
DEAP library [25] and PyEvolve [26].

Meanwhile, for CRF-based semantic segmentation, we

employ the RobustPn implementation of Ladicky et al. [27],
which relies on alpha-beta expansion for inference. The CRF
parameters are the same as in [27]. Besides, unary potentials
are generated using the Textonboost generator of [18]. We
follow the evaluation metrics of the VOC competition [28],
namely global-accuracy (GAcc) and class-accuracy (CAcc).
They are formulated as folows.
ntp
GAcc = (10)
np
where np denotes the number of pixels, while ntp, nfn and
nfp denote the number of true positives, false negatives and
false positives, respectively.
(b) With respect to topic 12 (intrepreted as Cow)
Fig. 5: Goodness level of segments from 15 segmentation processes.
Yellow lines mark segment borders. Brighter areas indicate higher
goodness levels. The top-left figure is the original image.
TABLE I: The quantitative comparison of semantic segmentation
perfomance among several methods. LEGEND: GAcc and CAcc
denote the global accuracy and the class accuracy, respectively; while
Tse/, Tann, Ttot denote the selection time, annotation (labeling) time,
and total time, respectively.

GAcc CAcc Tsel Ta Ttot

Selection Method nn
(%) (%) (s) (s) (s)
B. Results Unary CRF 58.612 1.14 1.14
79.846 0
PaITwise CRF 80.076 59.032 0 3.52 3.52
addition to semantic segmentation performance, we also
In RobustP (No Selection) 82.490 62.883 0 443.01 443.01
present results on estimating segment goodness. Robustpn (50-best) 81.513 60.922 O.OO 18.31 18.31
Robustpn (l00-best) 81.761 61.627 O.OO 40.29 40.29
1) Estimating segment goodness: Fig. 5 shows goodness Robustpn (150-best) 81.887 61.511 O.OO 115.45 115.45
Robustpn (LDA+GA) 82.130 61.790 34.87 21.20 56.07
level of segments from multiple segmentation on two images.
RobustP" (LDA+BPSO) 82.412 62.744 25.38 50.89 76.27
As can be seen in subfigure 5(a), most segments that lie
on the Flower area have higher levels of goodness (brighter
color). The same goes to most segments in the Cow area as
in subfigure 5(b). 2) Semantic segmentation: Table I shows the quantitave
comparison among several CRF-based semantic segmentation.
In principle, the segment goodness can be well estimated In comparison with the RobustPn with all segments (no
using the LDA approach. We observe consistent findings that segment selection), the evolutionary segment selection speeds
good segments are those with high probability on some topic. up semantic segmentation up to a factor of six: 56.078 and
Additionally, probability distributions of visual words on an 76.278 for segments selected with GA and PSO, respectively,
object-class are distinguishable among all 21 object classes. compared with 443.018. The main reason for this is obviously

253 978-1-5090-0363-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE

 ICACSIS 2015
Fig. 6: Qualitative results of semantic segmentation using several methods, namely (from left to right): Pairwise CRFs (the 2nd column),
RobustPn with all segments, RobustPn with GA-selected segments, and RobustPn with PSO-selected segments (the right-most column).
because the reduction on the number of segments that are
involved in the higher-order CRFs. Recall that those selected
segments become the higher order cliques of CRFs.
We found that in average, there are 300 segments per
image. Interestingly, our proposed evolutionary segment selec
tion selects approximately one third of those. The GA gives
fewer segments than the PSO, but with the cost of longer
selection time. A fewer number of GA-selected segments
results in shorter annotation time, compared with that using
PSO-selected segments.
In terms of GAcc and CAcc (equation 10), however, the
RobustPn with evolutionary segment selection yields slightly
worse performance. Particularly, the best performance is ob
tained from the RobustPn with all segments, whose GAcc is of
82.490%, while the GAcc's of RobustPn with GA-selected and
PSO-selected are of 82.130% and 82.412%, respectively. We
believe that this is a reasonable trade-off between speed and
performance, where we gain up to 6 times speed-up with the
price of slightly reduced semantic segmentation quality. Fig. 6
depicts several qualitative results of semantic segmentation.
254
VII. CONCLUSIONS
We aim to selectively choose segments for higher-order
Conditional Random Fields in semantic image segmentation.
To this end, we formulate the selection as an optimization
problem. We propose three optimization criteria in relation to
the selected segments, namely: a) averaged goodness, b) cov
erage area and c) non-overlapped area. We desire to have best
segments with maximum coverage area and maximum non
overlapped area. The goodness of segments is estimated via
the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). We investigate the per
formance of two evolutionary optimization methods, namely:
the Genetic Algorithm and the Particle Swarm Optimization
for segment selection. Experiment results show that seman
tic segmentation with GA-or-PSO-selected segments y ields
competitive semantic segmentation accuracy in comparison to
that of naively using all segments. In particular, we achieve
the semantic segmentation accuracy of 82.130%, 82.412%
and 82.490% from semantic segmentation using GA-selected,
PSO-selected and all segments, respectively. Moreover, the
fewer number of segments used in semantic segmentation
(approximately one third of all segments) speeds up its com
putation time up to six times faster. It also is proven that the
goodness of segments can be well estimated via LDA.
978-1-5090-0363-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE
 ICACSIS 2015
REFERENCES
[1] J. Shotton, J. Winn, C. Rother, and A. Criminisi, "Textonboost for
image understanding: Multi-class object recognition and segmentation
by jointly modeling texture, layout, and context," Int. J. Comput.
Vision, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 2-23, Jan. 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/1O.1007/s11263-007-0109-1
[2] P. Kohli, L. Ladicky, and P. H. Torr, "Robust higher order potentials
for enforcing label consistency," Int. J. Comput. Vision, vol. 82, no. 3,
pp. 302-324, May 2009.
[3] P. Kriihenbiihl and V. Koltun, "Efficient inference in fully connected
crfs with gaussian edge potentials," in Advances in Neural Iriformation
Processing Systems 24, J. Shawe-Taylor, R. Zemel, P. Bartlett,
F. P ereira, and K. Weinberger, Eds. Curran Associates, Inc., 2011, pp.
109-117. [Online]. Available: http://papers.nips.cc/paper/4296-efficient
inference-in-fully-connected-crfs-with-gaussian-edge-potentials.pdf
[4] S. Gould, "Probabilistic models for region-based scene understanding,"
P h.D. dissertation, Stanford University, June 2010.
[5] C. Pantofaru, C. Schmid, and M. Hebert, "Object recognition by
integrating multiple image segmentations," in Proceedings of the 10th
European Coriference on Computer Vision: Part III, ser. ECCV '08.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2008, pp. 481-494.
[6] M. P. Kumar and D. Koller, "Efficiently selecting regions for scene
understanding," in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR),
2010 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2010, pp. 3217-3224.
[7] P. Kohli, L. Ladicky, and P. H. S. Torr, "Robust higher order poten
tials for enforcing label consistency," in Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2008. CVPR 2008. IEEE Coriference on, June 2008, pp.
1-8.
[8] S. Z. Li, Markov Random Field Modeling in Image Analysis, 3rd ed.
Springer P ublishing Company, Incorporated, 2009.
[9] D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. 1. Jordan, "Latent dirichlet allocation,"
J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 3, pp. 993-1022, Mar. 2003. [Online].
Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=944919.944937
[10] B. Russell, W. Freeman, A. Efros, J. Sivic, and A. Zisserrnan, "Using
multiple segmentations to discover objects and their extent in image
collections," in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2006 IEEE
Computer Society Conference on, vol. 2, 2006, pp. 1605-1614.
[11] K. Mikolajczyk and C. Schmid, "Scale & affine
invariant interest point detectors," Int. J. Comput. Vision,
vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 63-86, Oct. 2004. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/l0.l0231B:VISI.0000027790.02288.f2
[12] D. G. Lowe, "Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,"
Int. J. Comput. Vision, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 91-110, Nov. 2004. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.orgl10.10231B:Y.1S1.OOoo029664.99615.94
[13] T. Griffiths, "Gibbs sampling in the generative model of latent dirichlet
allocation," Tech. Rep., 2002.
[14] Y. Xin-She, Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithms, 1st ed., ser.
Elsevier Insights. Elsevier, 2014.
[15] J. Kennedy and R. C. Eberhart, "Particle swarm optimization," in
Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Coriference on Neural
Networks, vol. 4, P erth, Australia, IEEE Service Center, Piscataway,
NJ, 1995, pp. 1942-1948.
255
[16] J Kennedy and R. Eberhart, "A discrete binary version of the par
:
ticle swarm algorithm," in Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1997.
Computational Cybernetics and Simulation., 1997 IEEE International
Coriference on, vol. 5, Oct 1997, pp. 4104-4108 vol.5.
[17] E. Chen, Z. Pan, Y. Sun, and X. Liu, "A binary particle swarm opti
mization based on proportion probability," in Business Intelligence and
Financial Engineering (BIFE), 2010 Third International Conference on,
Aug 2010, pp. 15-19.
[18] P. Kriihenbiihl and V. Koltun, "Parameter learning and convergent infer
ence for dense random fields," in Proceedings of the 30th International
Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2013, Atlanta, GA, USA, 16-21
June 2013, 2013, pp. 513-521.
[19] S. van der Walt, J. L. SchOnberger, J. Nunez-Iglesias, F. Boulogne, J. D.
Warner, N. Y ager, E. Goui11art, T. Y u, and the scikit-image contributors,
"scikit-image: image processing in P ython," PeerJ, vol. 2, p. e453, 6
2014.
[20] R. Achanta, S. Hemami, F. Estrada, and S. Susstrunk, "Frequency-tuned
salient region detection," in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,
2009. CVPR 2009. IEEE Conference on, June 2009, pp. 1597-1604.
[21] A. Vedaldi and S. Soatto, "Quick shift and kernel methods for mode
seeking," in In European Conference on Computer Vision, volume IV,
2008, pp. 705-718.
[22] P. F. Felzenszwalb and D. P. Huttenlocher, "Efficient graph-based image
segmentation," Int. J. Comput. Vision, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 167-181, Sep.
2004.
[23] X.-H. P han and C.-T. Nguyen, "Gibbslda++: A clc++ implementation
of latent dirichlet allocation Oda)," Tech. Rep., 2007. [Online].
Available: http://gibbslda.sourceforge.net/
[24] (2007) Affine covariant features. [Online]. Available:
http://www.robots.ox.ac.ukI vgglresearchlaffinel
[25] F.-A. Fortin, F.-M. De Rainville, M.-A. Gardner, M. P arizeau, and
C. Gagne, "DEAP: Evolutionary algorithms made easy," Journal of
Machine Learning Research, vol. 13, pp. 2171-2175, jul 2012.
[26] C. S. P erone, "Pyevolve: A python open-source framework for genetic
algorithms," SIGEVOlution, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 12-20, Nov. 2009.
[Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.orgl10.1145/1656395.1656397
[27] P. Kohli, L. Ladicky, and P. H. S. Torr, "Robust higher order poten
tials for enforcing label consistency," in Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, 2008. CVPR 2008. IEEE Coriference on, June 2008, pp.
1-8.
[28] M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. I. Williams, J. Winn,
and A. Zisserrnan, "The PASCAL Visual Object Classes
Challenge 2012 (VOC2012) Results," http://www.pascal
network.orglchallengesNOClvoc2012lworkshop/index.html.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by Universitas Indone
sia and Directorate General of Higher Education, under
Grant Research Collaboration and Scientific Publication No:
0403/UN2.RI2IHKP.OS.OO/201S.
978-1-5090-0363-1/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE