skip to main content
10.1145/3332186.3332190acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespearcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Framework for Design Identification on Heritage Objects

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

A challenging problem in modern archaeology is to automatically identify fragmented heritage objects by their decorative full designs, such as the pottery sherds from Southeastern America. The difficulties of this problem lie in: 1) these pottery sherds are usually fragmented so that each sherd only covers a small portion of its underlying full design; 2) these sherds can be so highly degraded that curves may contain missing segments or become very shallow; and 3) curve patterns may overlap with each other from the making of these potteries. This paper presents a deep-learning based framework for matching a sherd with a database of known designs to find its underlying design. This framework contains three steps: 1) extracting curve pattern using an FCN-based curve pattern segmentation method from the digitized sherd's depth map, 2) matching a sherd with a non-composite (single copy of a design) pattern combining template matching algorithm with a dual-source CNN re-ranking method to find its underlying design, and 3) matching a sherd with a composite (multiple copies of a design) pattern using a Chamfer Matching based method. The framework was evaluated on a set of sherds from the heartland of the paddle-stamping tradition with a subset of known paddle-stamped designs of Pre-colonial southeastern North America. Extensive experimental results show the effectiveness of the proposed framework and algorithms.

References

  1. Vijay Badrinarayanan, Alex Kendall, and Roberto Cipolla. 2017. Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 39, 12 (2017), 2481--2495.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Harry Barrow, Jay Tenenbaum, Robert Bolles, and Helen Wolf. 1977. Parametric correspondence and Chamfer matching: Two new techniques for image matching. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2. 659--663. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Serge Belongie, Jitendra Malik, and Jan Puzicha. 2001. Shape Context: A new descriptor for shape matching and object recognition. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 831--837. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Roberto Brunelli. 2009. Template Matching Techniques in Computer Vision: Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Y. Cao, Z. Zhang, I. Czogiel, et al. 2011. 2D nonrigid partial shape matching using MCMC and contour subdivision. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 2345--2352. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L Yuille. 2018. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolution, and fully connected crfs. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 40, 4 (2018), 834--848.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernand Cohen, Ezgi Taslidere, Zexi Liu, et al. 2010. Virtual reconstruction of archaeological vessels using expert priors & surface markings. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Workshops. IEEE, 7--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. David Cooper, Andrew Willis, Stuart Andrews, et al. 2001. Assembling virtual pots from 3D measurements of their fragments. In Conference on Virtual Reality, Archeology, and Cultural Heritage. ACM, 241--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ayelet Gilboa, Avshalom Karasik, Ilan Sharon, et al. 2004. Towards computerized typology and classification of ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 6 (2004), 681--694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Radim Halíř. 1999. An automatic estimation of the axis of rotation of fragments of archaeological pottery: A multi-step model-based approach. In International Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Interactive Digital Media. WSCG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Xufeng Han, Thomas Leung, Yangqing Jia, Rahul Sukthankar, and Alexander Berg. 2015. MatchNet: Unifying feature and metric learning for patch-based matching. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 3279--3286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin Kampel and Robert Sablatnig. 2007. Rule based system for archaeological pottery classification. Pattern Recognition Letters 28, 6 (2007), 740--747. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Avshalom Karasik and Uzy Smilansky. 2008. 3D scanning technology as a standard archaeological tool for pottery analysis: practice and theory. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 5 (2008), 1148--1168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Avshalom Karasik and Uzy Smilansky. 2011. Computerized morphological classification of ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 10 (2011), 2644--2657.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2012. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 1097--1105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kevin Lin, Hueifang Yang, Jenhao Hsiao, and Chusong Chen. 2015. Deep learning of binary hash codes for fast image retrieval. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Workshops. 27--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. 2015. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 3431--3440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Liana M Lorigo, Olivier D Faugeras, W Eric L Grimson, Renaud Keriven, Ron Kikinis, Arya Nabavi, and C-F Westin. 2001. Curves: Curve evolution for vessel segmentation. Medical image analysis 5, 3 (2001), 195--206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Yuhang Lu, Jun Zhou, Jun Chen, Jing Wang, Karen Smith, Wilder Colin, and Song Wang. 2018. Curve-structure segmentation from depth maps: A CNN-based approach and its application to exploring cultural heritage objects. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Michael Makridis and Petros Daras. 2012. Automatic classification of archaeological pottery sherds. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 5, 4, Article 15 (2012), 21 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Bangalore Manjunath and Weiying Ma. 1996. Texture features for browsing and retrieval of image data. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 18, 8 (1996), 837--842. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Philip Phillips and James Brown. 1978. Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro, Oklahoma, Part 1. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Li-Ying Qi and Ke-Gang Wang. 2010. Kernel fuzzy clustering based classification of Ancient-Ceramic fragments. In International Conference on Information Management and Engineering. IEEE, 348--350.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Dorie Reents-Budet. 1994. Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period (Duke University Museum of Art). Duke University Press, Durham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Edgar Roman-Rangel, Diego Jimenez-Badillo, and Estibaliz Aguayo-Ortiz. 2014. Categorization of Aztec potsherds using 3D local descriptors. In Asian Conference on Computer Vision - Workshops. Springer, 567--582.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Edgar Roman-Rangel, Carlos Pallan, Jean-Marc Odobez, et al. 2011. Analyzing ancient Maya glyph collections with contextual shape descriptors. International Journal of Computer Vision 94, 1 (2011), 101--117. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Xiaodong Tao, Jerry L Prince, and Christos Davatzikos. 2002. Using a statistical shape model to extract sulcal curves on the outer cortex of the human brain. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 21, 5 (2002), 513--524.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Roger Weber, HansJörg Schek, and Stephen Blott. 1998. A quantitative analysis and performance study for similarity-search methods in high-dimensional spaces. In International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Vol. 98. 194--205. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Sergey Zagoruyko and Nikos Komodakis. 2015. Learning to compare image patches via convolutional neural networks. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 4353--4361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Christoph Zauner. 2010. Implementation and Benchmarking of Perceptual Image Hash Functions. Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Shuai Zheng, Sadeep Jayasumana, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Vibhav Vineet, Zhizhong Su, Dalong Du, Chang Huang, and Philip HS Torr. 2015. Conditional random fields as recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 1529--1537. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jun Zhou, Haozhou Yu, Karen Smith, Colin Wilder, Hongkai Yu, and Song Wang. 2017. Identifying designs from incomplete, fragmented cultural heritage objects by curve-pattern matching. Journal of Electronic Imaging 26, 1 (2017), 011022--011022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Qin Zou, Yu Cao, Qingquan Li, Qingzhou Mao, and Song Wang. 2012. CrackTree: Automatic crack detection from pavement images. Pattern Recognition Letters 33, 3 (2012), 227--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    PEARC '19: Proceedings of the Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing on Rise of the Machines (learning)
    July 2019
    775 pages
    ISBN:9781450372275
    DOI:10.1145/3332186
    • General Chair:
    • Tom Furlani

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 28 July 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate133of202submissions,66%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader