Occlusive components analysis

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22 - Proceedings of the 2009 Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 1069-1077

  Lücke, Jorg ^a   Turner, Richard ^b   Sahani, Maneesh ^b   Henniges, Marc ^a  

^a FRANKFURT INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; COMPUTER VISION; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD; MAXIMUM PRINCIPLE;

COMPONENT ANALYSIS; COMPONENT EXTRACTION; GENERATIVE MODEL; LATENT VARIABLE; LEARN+; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD LEARNING; MODEL USE; MODELING PARAMETERS; OBJECT PARAMETERS; PROBABILISTICS;

EXTRACTION;

EID: 84858716136     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. B. A. Olshausen and D. J. Field. Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature, 381:607 - 609, 1996.
2. D. D. Lee and H. S. Seung. Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Nature, 401(6755):788-91, 1999.
3. N. Jojic and B. Frey. Learning flexible sprites in video layers. Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1:199-206, 2001.
4. C. K. I. Williams and M. K. Titsias. Greedy learning of multiple objects in images using robust statistics and factorial learning. Neural Computation, 16(5):1039-1062, 2004.
5. K. Fukushima. Restoring partly occluded patterns: a neural network model. Neural Networks, 18(1):33-43, 2005.
6. C. Eckes, J. Triesch, and C. von der Malsburg. Analysis of cluttered scenes using an elastic matching approach for stereo images. Neural Computation, 18(6):1441-1471, 2006.
7. R. M. Neal and G. E. Hinton. A view of the EM algorithm that justifies incremental, sparse, and other variants. In M. I. Jordan, editor, Learning in Graphical Models. Kluwer, 1998.
8. J. Lücke and M. Sahani. Maximal causes for non-linear component extraction. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:1227 - 1267, 2008.
9. N. Ueda and R. Nakano. Deterministic annealing EM algorithm. Neural Networks, 11(2):271-282, 1998.
10. M. Sahani. Latent variable models for neural data analysis, 1999. PhD Thesis, Caltech.
11. P. Földiák. Forming sparse representations by local anti-Hebbian learning. Biol Cybern, 64:165 - 170, 1990.
12. M. W. Spratling. Learning image components for object recognition. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7:793 - 815, 2006.
13. S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Feature extraction through LOCOCODE. Neural Computation, 11:679 - 714, 1999.
14. P. O. Hoyer. Non-negative matrix factorization with sparseness constraints. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5:1457-1469, 2004.
15. S. A. Nene, S. K. Nayar, and H. Murase. Columbia object image library (COIL-100). Technical report, cucs-006-96, 1996.
16. H. Wersing and E. Körner. Learning optimized features for hierarchical models of invariant object recognition. Neural Computation, 15(7):1559-1588, 2003.
17. U. Köster, J. T. Lindgren, M. Gutmann, and A. Hyvärinen. Learning natural image structure with a horizontal product model. In Int. Conf. on Independent Component Analysis and Signal Separation (ICA), pages 507-514, 2009.
18. P. Wolfrum, C. Wolff, J. Lücke, and C. von der Malsburg. A recurrent dynamic model for correspondence-based face recognition. Journal of Vision, 8(7):1-18, 2008.
19. D. G. Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision, 60(2):91-110, 2004.
20. J. Eggert, H. Wersing, and E. Körner. Transformation-invariant representation and NMF. In Int. J. Conf. on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 2535-2539, 2004.