J Math Imaging Vis
DOI 10.1007/s10851-013-0438-3
Component-Trees and Multivalued Images: Structural Properties
Nicolas Passat · Benoît Naegel
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Component-trees model the structure of grey-
level images by considering their binary level-sets obtained
from successive thresholdings. They also enable to define
anti-extensive filtering procedures for such images. In or-
der to extend this image processing approach to any (grey-
level or multivalued) images, both the notion of component-
tree, and its associated filtering framework, have to be gen-
eralised. In this article we deal with the generalisation of
the component-tree structure. We define a new data struc-
ture, the component-graph, which extends the notion of
component-tree to images taking their values in any (par-
tially or totally) ordered set. The component-graphs are de-
clined in three variants, of increasing richness and size,
whose structural properties are studied.
Keywords Mathematical morphology · Component-tree ·
Multivalued images · Anti-extensive filtering ·
Component-graph
1 Introduction
The component-tree is a data structure which models some
characteristics of grey-level images by considering their bi-
nary level-sets obtained from successive thresholding op-
erations. Component-trees are particularly well-suited for
N. Passat
CReSTIC, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims,
France
e-mail: nicolas.passat@univ-reims.fr
B. Naegel ()
ICube, CNRS, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
e-mail: b.naegel@unistra.fr
the design of methods devoted to process or analyse grey-
level images, based on hypotheses related to the topology
(connectedness) and the specific intensity (local extrema) of
structures of interest. Based on these properties, component-
trees have been involved in several image processing appli-
cations, especially for filtering and segmentation.
The success of component-trees in the field of grey-level
image processing, together with the increasing need for ap-
plications involving multivalued images, motivate their ex-
tension to the case of such images, which do not take their
values in totally ordered sets, but in any (partially or totally)
ordered ones. In particular, this work takes place in the con-
text of the extension of mathematical morphology to multi-
valued images.
After a preliminary study of the relations between compo-
nent-trees and multivalued images from a methodological
point of view [1], a generalisation of component-trees to
such images has been initiated in [2]. The present work
develops this framework. In particular, this article deals
with data structure issues (algorithmic issues will be con-
sidered in a further article). We describe a new data struc-
ture, the component-graph, which extends the notion of
component-tree to images taking values in any ordered set.
The component-graphs are declined in three variants of in-
creasing richness and size. Their structural properties are
studied, in particular under various hypotheses related to
frequent image value spaces.
This article is organised as follows. Section 2 describes
the context of this work. Section 3 provides notations. Sec-
tion 4 gives a formal definition of the classical notion of
component-tree. Sections 5–7 constitute the contribution of
the article. Section 5 defines the notion of component-graph.
Section 6 establishes the structural links between different
variants of this notion. Section 7 studies the influence of
specific image value spaces, thus leading to structural sim-

plifications. Section 8 summarises the principal properties
of component-graphs. Section 9 concludes the article.
2 Related Works
2.1 Component-Trees
Initially proposed in the field of statistics [3, 4], the compo-
nent-tree (also known as dendrone [5, 6], confinement tree
[7] or max-tree [8]) has been (re)defined in the framework
of mathematical morphology (see, e.g., [9, Chap. 7], or [10])
and involved in the development of morphological operators
[8, 11].
From a methodological point of view, some efforts
have been conducted to enable the efficient computation of
component-trees [8, 12–14]. From an applicative point of
view, component-trees have been involved in the develop-
ment of several image processing and analysis techniques.
Most of them are devoted to filtering or segmentation [8,
15–18]. Other applications have also been considered, for
instance, image registration [7, 19], image retrieval [20, 21],
image classification [22], interactive visualisation [23], mul-
tithresholding [24] or document binarisation [25].
In the field of filtering and segmentation, the proposed
methods have been designed to detect some structures of in-
terest by using information modelled by attributes [11, 26],
and stored at each node of the tree. These attributes are cho-
sen according to hypotheses related to the applicative con-
text. The subtree obtained by pruning the component-tree of
the image, with respect to these attributes, can then be used
to reconstruct a binary (segmentation) or grey-level (filter-
ing) result.
2.2 Mathematical Morphology and Multivalued Images
Mathematical morphology has been first defined on binary
images, and then on grey-level ones (see [9] for a recent state
of the art on mathematical morphology). Its extension to
 y) ∧ (y
 x))).
multivalued (e.g., colour, multispectral, label) images is an
important task, motivated by potential applications in mul-
tiple areas. Several contributions have been devoted to this
specific purpose (a whole state of the art is beyond the scope
of this article; see, e.g., [27] for a recent survey).
In general, the spaces in which such images take their
values are not canonically equipped with total orders (by
opposition to the case of grey-level images), but with partial
ones. Several strategies have been considered to deal with
this issue. Except in few works (see, e.g., [28]), they intend
to split these value spaces into several totally ordered ones
(marginal processing), or to define ad hoc total order rela-
tions on them (vectorial processing), with several variants
J Math Imaging Vis
[29–33]. These approaches present the advantage of embed-
ding multivalued images into simpler frameworks which au-
thorise to process them similarly to grey-level ones, enabling
in particular to reduce the algorithmic complexity induced
by partially ordered sets. Unfortunately, they may also po-
tentially hide the information intrinsically carried by these—
more complex but richer—partially ordered value spaces.
In the present work, we deal with the general case of
any (partially or totally) ordered value spaces, without at-
tempting to modify the order, then providing a contribution
to the extension of mathematical morphology to multivalued
images, and more especially to the one of connected filter-
ing (see also [34, 35] for other recent contributions on this
topic).
3 Notations
The inclusion (resp. strict inclusion) relation on sets is
noted ⊆ (resp. ⊂). The cardinality of a set X is noted |X|.
The power set of a set X is noted 2X . If P ⊆ 2X is a partition

of X, we write X = P.
A function F from a set X to a set Y is noted F : X → Y ,
and the set of all the functions from X to Y is noted Y X . If
X  ⊆ X and Y  ⊆ Y , we note F (X  ) = {F (x) | x ∈ X  } and
F −1 (Y  ) = {x ∈ X | F (x) ∈ Y  }. If F is a bijection, we also
note F −1 : Y → X its associated inverse function.
Let  be a (binary) relation on a set X. The restriction of
 to a subset Y ⊆ X will generally still be noted  (except
if a new notation is introduced).
We say that  is an equivalence relation if  is reflexive,
transitive and symmetric. For any x ∈ X, the equivalence
class of x with respect to  is noted [x] . The set of all
these equivalence classes is noted X/.
We say that  is an order relation (and that (X, ) is
an ordered set) if  is reflexive, transitive and antisymmet-
ric. Moreover, we say that  is a total (resp. partial) or-
der relation (and that (X, ) is a totally (resp. partially)
ordered set), if  is total (resp. partial) (i.e., if ∀x, y ∈ X,
(x  y) ∨ (y  x) (resp. if ∃x, y ∈ X, (x
For any symbol further used to denote an order relation
(⊆, ≤, , etc.), the inverse symbol (⊇, ≥, , etc.) denotes
the associated dual order, while the symbol without lower
bar (⊂, <, , etc.) denotes the associated strict order.
The Hasse diagram of an ordered set (X, ) is the couple
(X, ≺) where ≺ is the cover relation associated to , defined
for all x, y ∈ X by x ≺ y iff x < y and there is no z ∈ X such
that x < z < y.
If (X, ) is an ordered set and x ∈ X, we note x ↑ = {y ∈
X | y  x} and x ↓ = {y ∈ X | y  x}, namely the sets of
the elements greater and lower than x, respectively. If Y ⊆
X, the sets of all the maximal and minimal elements of Y
` a
are noted  Y and  Y , respectively. The supremum and
J Math Imaging Vis

the infimum of Y are noted (when they exist)  Y and In the illustrations of Sects. 4–7, the sets Ω will be finite
   
Y , respectively (we will note and for ⊆ and subsets of R2 equipped with the usual arc-based connectiv-
⊆
, respectively). The maximum and the minimum of Y ity.
b c
are noted (when they exist)  Y and  Y , respectively.
If Y is defined as {x | p(x)} where p is a Boolean predicate, 4.2 Images
b b
we will sometimes note p(x) x, instead of  Y ; the same
c     
remark holds for  ,  ,  , , , . Let Ω be a nonempty finite set. Let V be a nonempty fi-
(Note that the symbol ≤ will be used to denote two dis- nite set equipped with an order relation . We assume that
tinct orders: the standard order on Z and the pointwise order (V , ) admits a minimum, noted ⊥. An image is a function
on functions; the context of use allows the reader to unam- I : Ω → V . The sets Ω and V are called the support and
biguously associate the correct semantics to each occurrence the value space of I , respectively. For any x ∈ Ω, I (x) ∈ V
of the symbol.) is the value of I at x. Without loss of generality, we assume
that I −1 ({⊥})
= ∅. If (V , ) is a totally (resp. partially) or-
dered set, we say that I is a grey-level (resp. a multivalued)
4 Component-Trees image.
Let X ⊆ Ω and v ∈ V . The thresholding function λv is
4.1 Connectivity defined by

 λv : V Ω → 2 Ω
Intuitively (and informally), the notion of connectivity on a   (1)
 I → x ∈ Ω | I (x)  v
set Ω allows to decide whether it is possible to go from a
point (or a subset) of Ω to another one while always re- The cylinder function C(X,v) is defined by
maining in Ω. If this property is verified, we say that Ω is 
connected. Several (similar, and sometimes equivalent [36])  C(X,v) : Ω → V


ways can be considered to define connectivity: from the  v if x ∈ X (2)

 x →
standard notions of topology [37, 38]; from the notions of  ⊥ otherwise
paths in digital/discrete spaces [39–41]; or even by morpho-
logical definitions of connectivity [17, 42–44]. An image I : Ω → V can be decomposed into cylinder
A connectivity on Ω can be defined by a function C : functions induced by thresholding operations and, symmet-
Ω
2 → 22 which provides, for any X ⊆ Ω the set of all
Ω rically, I can be reconstructed by composition of these cylin-
the connected sets included in X. The maximal elements of der functions, as
the ordered set (C(X), ⊆) are called the connected compo- ≤ ≤
j j
nents of X, and the set of all the connected components of
` I= C(X,v) (3)
X (namely ⊆ C(X)) is noted C[X]. v∈V X∈C [λv (I )]
In the present work, we are mainly interested by the fol-
lowing three properties of connectivity: where ≤ is the order relation on V Ω defined by
(P1) If X ⊆ Ω, then the set C[X] is a partition of X.  
(F ≤ G) ⇔ ∀x ∈ Ω, F (x)  G(x) (4)
(P2) If X ⊆ Y ⊆ Ω, then for any A ∈ C[X], there exists a
unique B ∈ C[Y ] such that A ⊆ B. We note Ψ the set of all the connected components ob-
(P3) If X ⊆ Y ⊆ Ω, A ∈ C[Y ] and A ⊆ X, then A ∈ C[X]. tained from all the thresholdings of I
Broadly speaking, Property (P1) guarantees the com-  
pleteness and non-redundancy of the decomposition of X Ψ= C λv (I ) (5)
v∈V
into connected components; Property (P2) guarantees the
hierarchical organisation of connected components in the
4.3 Component-Trees
power set lattice of Ω; and Property (P3) guarantees the per-
sistence of connected components in this lattice.1
In the sequel of this section, we assume that (V , ) is a to-
In the sequel, we consider any connectivity on Ω (satis-
tally ordered set. It derives from Properties (P1), (P2) and
fying, in particular, Properties (P1)–(P3)), provided that Ω
from the totality of  that for any X ∈ Ψ , (X ↑ , ⊆) is a to-
is connected for this connectivity (i.e., C[Ω] = {Ω}). b
tally ordered set. Moreover, since we also have Ω = ⊆ X ↑ ,
the Hasse diagram T of (Ψ, ⊆) has a tree structure (of
1 These hypotheses are intrinsically related to block splitting openings root Ω). This Hasse diagram is called the component-tree
in the lattice of partitions [45]. of I .
 J Math Imaging Vis

Fig. 1 (a) A grey-level image

I : Ω → V with Ω ⊂ R2 , and
V = [[0, 4]] ⊂ Z (from 0, in
black, to 4, in white), equipped
with the standard order relation
≤ on Z. (c)–(g) Thresholded
images λv (I ) ⊆ Ω (in white) for
v varying from 0 to 4. (b) The
component-tree T of I . The
letters (A–P) in nodes
correspond to the associated
connected components (c)–(g).
(h) Filtered image I obtained
from I by preserving the nodes
B, F, K, M and P in T.
(i) Segmented (binary) image
obtained
 b≤from I by substituting
to , and X to C(X,m(X)) in
Formula (7), with the same set
of nodes as in (h)

An example of component-tree is shown in Fig. 1(a–g). 4.4 Purpose

It illustrates in particular the fact that X ∈ Ψ can correspond
to several connected components in distinct thresholded im- We propose to extend the concepts defined in Sect. 4.3 to
ages λv (I ) ⊆ Ω for successive values v ∈ V . the case of multivalued images. In order to do so, it is nec-
This remark implies that each X ∈ Ψ is intrinsically as- essary:
sociated in T to a value m(X) defined by (i) to define a data structure generalising the notion of
component-tree to such images; and

j 
   k (ii) to generalise the associated filtering framework accord-
m(X) = v | X ∈ C λv (I ) = I (x) (6)
ingly.
x∈X
The item (i) is considered in Sects. 5–7. The item (ii) will
which is actually the maximal value of V which generates be developed in further works.
this connected component by thresholding of I (note that the
second equality in Formula (6) derives from Property (P3)).
This definition of m(X) is motivated by the reconstruction 5 Component-Graphs
of I from its component-tree. Indeed, each X ∈ Ψ is asso-
ciated to a cylinder function, and in particular to the value In this section, we assume that the order relation  on V can
parameterising this function. More formally, based on For- be either partial or total.
mula (3), we have
5.1 Valued Connected Components
≤
j
I= C(X,m(X)) (7) In Formula (3), any cylinder function C(X,v) is generated by
X∈Ψ a couple (X, v) where X ∈ C[λv (I )] is a connected compo-
nent of the thresholded image λv (I ) ⊆ Ω of I at value v. In
The selection of subsets of Ψ (generally based on ad the sequel, (X, v) is called a valued connected component.
hoc criteria) in component-trees T can be used to develop We define the set Θ ⊆ 2Ω × V of all the valued connected
(anti-extensive) filtering procedures [8, 15]. When perform- components of an image I : Ω → V as
ing such procedures, the resulting image I: Ω → V induced 
 ⊆ Ψ can be defined by substituting Ψ  to Ψ in For- 
by Ψ Θ= C λv (I ) × {v} (8)
mula (7), as illustrated in Fig. 1(h, i). v∈V
J Math Imaging Vis

From the order relation  defined on V , and the inclusion Definition 1 (Component-graph(s)) Let I : Ω → V be an
relation ⊆ on 2Ω , we can define the order relation  on Θ image. The Θ- (resp. Θ̇-, resp. Θ̈-)component-graph of I
as follows is the Hasse diagram G = (Θ, ) (resp. Ġ = (Θ̇, ), ˙ resp.

¨
G̈ = (Θ̈, )) of the ordered set (Θ, ) (resp. (Θ̇, ), resp.
(X1 ⊂ X2 )∨ (Θ̈, )). For the sake of concision, the term Θ̊-component-
(X1 , v1 )  (X2 , v2 ) ⇔ (9)
((X1 = X2 ) ∧ (v2  v1 )) graph and the notation G̊ = (Θ̊, )˚ will sometimes be used
This order relation on the valued connected components, to denote the three kinds of component-graphs. The ele-
previously introduced in [46], can be seen as the analogue of ments of Θ̊ are called Θ̊-nodes (or simply, nodes); the el-
ements of  ˚ are called Θ̊-edges (or simply, edges); (Ω, ⊥)
the (order) inclusion relation on the connected components. a
In particular, for any (X1 , v1 ), (X2 , v2 ) ∈ Θ, it verifies the is called the root; the elements of  Θ̊ are called the leaves
following properties of the Θ̊-component-graph.

 
(X1 ∩ X2
= ∅) ∧ (v2  v1 ) ⇒ (X1 ⊆ X2 ) (10) An example of component-graph is illustrated in Fig. 2.
  From Formula (3), the reconstruction of I from its valued
(X1 , v1 )  (X2 , v2 ) ⇒ (v1
< v2 ) (11) connected components is given by

5.2 Component-Graphs ≤
j
I= CK (17)
In first approximation, the component-graph G of an image K∈Θ̊
I : Ω → V is defined as the Hasse diagram of the ordered
set (Θ, ). However, three variants of component-graphs
can relevantly be considered by defining two additional sub- 6 General Remarks on the Structure
sets Θ̇, Θ̈ ⊆ Θ of valued connected components (the use- of Component-Graphs
fulness of which will be justified in the sequel)
In this section, we study some links existing between the

h    different structures of Θ̊-component-graphs and the Hasse
Θ̇ = {X} × v | X ∈ C λv (I ) (12) diagram (V , ≺) of (V , ).
X∈Ψ

    ≤
j 6.1 Links Between (Θ, ) and (V , ≺)

Θ̈ = (Ω, ⊥) ∪ Θ ⊆ Θ I = CK (13)
K∈Θ 
The Θ-component-graph of I : Ω → V locally inherits
from the structure of (V , ≺). More precisely, for any leave
Broadly speaking, Θ gathers all the valued connected com- a
ponents induced by I ; Θ̇ gathers the valued connected com- K = (X, v) ∈  Θ, the ordered set (K ↑ , ) is “similar” to
ponents of maximal values for any connected components; the ordered set (v ↓ , ).
and Θ̈ gathers the valued connected components associated This similarity is first expressed by the fact that each
to the cylinders functions which are sup/max-generators of I valued connected component of K ↑ can be associated to a
(see Formula (3)). unique value of v ↓ and vice versa.
We note  (resp. , ˙ resp. )
¨ the cover relation associated a
to the order relation  on Θ (resp. to the restriction of  to Property 1 Let K = (X, v) ∈ Θ. The function
Θ̇, resp. to the restriction of  to Θ̈). From these definitions, 
 σ : K ↑ → v↓
we derive that  (18)
 (Y, u) → u
Θ̈ ⊆ Θ̇ ⊆ Θ (14)
is a bijection between K ↑ and v ↓ .
and
Proof The fact that σ ((Y, u)) ∈ v ↓ for any (Y, u) ∈ K ↑ de-
   a
j j j rives from the fact that K ∈  Θ (this is generally not true
Θ= Θ̇ = Θ̈ = (Ω, ⊥) (15) otherwise). The injectivity and surjectivity of σ then derive
   from Properties (P1) and (P2).
i i i
Θ= Θ̇ = Θ̈ (16)
This similarity is also expressed by the fact that the re-
We then have the following definition for the three vari- lation between two values of v ↓ is preserved between their
ants of component-graphs. associated valued connected components in K ↑ .

Fig. 2 (a) A multivalued image I : Ω → V with Ω ⊂ R2 , and V =
{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j }. (b) The Hasse diagram of the ordered set
(V , ). For the sake of readability, each value of V is associated to
an arbitrary colour. The (Hasse diagrams of the) ordered sets (f ↓ , ),
(i ↓ , ), (j ↓ , ) are identified by the closed green, cyan and orange
curves, respectively. (c)–(l) Thresholded images λv (I ) for v ∈ V . (m)
The Θ-component-graph of I . The letters (A–S) in nodes correspond
to the associated connected components (c)–(l). For any one of the four
a
leaves K = (X, v) ∈  Θ, the (Hasse diagram of the) ordered set
(K ↑ , ) is identified by a closed curve of colour corresponding to the
a
Property 2 Let K = (X, v) ∈  Θ. The function σ −1 :
v ↓ → K ↑ induces a homomorphism from (v ↓ , ) to
(K ↑ , ), i.e., for any K1 = σ −1 (v1 ), K2 = σ −1 (v2 ) ∈ K ↑ ,
 v2 . This property derives from the definition of  (For-
we have
(v1  v2 ) ⇒ (K1  K2 ) (19)
Proof The result derives from Property (P2).
J Math Imaging Vis
value σ (K) = v (see Property 1). The comparison between these four
curves and the three curves of (b) illustrates the “flattening” of (K ↑ , )
by comparison to (σ (K)↓ , ) (see Property 3). (n) The Θ̇-component-
graph of I . The nodes I, J, K, L, R and S, in Ġ are associated to the
sets of nodes {D, I}, {E, J}, {F, K}, {G, H, L}, {O, R} and {M, N,
Q, S} in G, respectively (see Property 4). (o) The Θ̈-component-graph
of I . The nodes C and J, which are surrounded by {K, L} and {R, S},
respectively, belong to Θ̇ but not to Θ̈ (see Property 6) (Color figure
online)
In general, this homomorphism is not an isomorphism.
In particular, it is possible that (X1 , v1 )  (X2 , v2 ) while
v1
mula (9)), in which ⊆ is considered prioritarily to .
From a theoretical point of view, the ordered set (K ↑ , )
is then richer than (v ↓ , ). (In other words, the cardinality
of  is higher than the cardinality of .) However, from a
practical point of view (K ↑ , ) is (most of the time) less
rich than (v ↓ , ≺).
J Math Imaging Vis
a
Property 3 Let K = (X, v) ∈  Θ. Let v1 , v2 ∈ v ↓ and Broadly speaking, all the edges between two nodes of
K1 = σ −1 (v1 ), K2 = σ −1 (v2 ) ∈ K ↑ . Let us suppose that (Θ, ) associated to a same connected component disappear
K1  K2 while v2
 v1 . Let v3 ∈ v ↓ and K3 = σ −1 (v3 ) ∈ ˙ while any edge between two nodes of (Θ, ) as-
in (Θ̇, ),
K ↑ . We have sociated to distinct connected components leads to edges be-
  ˙ respectively associated
tween all pairs of nodes of (Θ̇, )
(v3 ≺ v1 ) ⇒ (v3 ≺ v2 ) ⇒ K1
 K3 (20) to these two distinct connected components. These links
  between Θ- and Θ̇-component-graphs are exemplified in
(v2 ≺ v3 ) ⇒ (v1 ≺ v3 ) ⇒ K3
 K2 (21)
Fig. 2(m, n).
Proof If v3 ≺ v1 , v2 , we have v3  v1 , v2 and then In this example, for any K ∈ Θ̇, we have [K]∼Θ̇ = {K}.
K1 , K2  K3 . By hypothesis, we then have K1  K2  K3 . However, this is not necessarily true in general. Neverthe-
By definition of  it comes K1
 K3 , and Formula (20) less, since the existence of an edge between K1 and K2 in
then holds. A similar reasoning can be applied for For- ˙ implies the existence of a similar edge between any
(Θ̇, )
mula (21). K1 and K2 in [K1 ]∼Θ̇ and [K2 ]∼Θ̇ , respectively, we can un-


ambiguously extend the relation  (and then ) ˙ from Θ̇ to

Broadly speaking, the appearance of one edge in (K ↑ , ) Θ̇/∼Θ̇ as follows
results in the disappearance of k edges (k ∈ N), by compari-  
son to the edges of (v ↓ , ≺). In particular, the different parts [K1 ]∼Θ̇  [K2 ]∼Θ̇ ⇔ (K1  K2 ) (26)
of (Θ, ) located above each leaf, will often be “flattened”,
˙ in a more compact fashion,
This enables to model (Θ̇, )
by comparison to (v ↓ , ≺), thus reducing the size of the as-
sociated data structure. This phenomenon is exemplified in by considering its equivalence classes for ∼Θ̇ instead of its
Fig. 2(a, b, m). nodes. This model is, moreover, directly linked to Ψ , as il-
lustrated in Fig. 3.
˙ and (Θ, )
6.2 Links Between (Θ̇, )
Property 5 By considering the bijection between Θ̇/∼Θ̇
˙ are and Ψ which associates any equivalence class [(X, v)]∼Θ̇
The nodes of (Θ, ) which are preserved in (Θ̇, )
of ∼Θ̇ to X,
those which are minimal elements with respect to , for a
given connected component (see Formula (12)).
(Θ̇/∼Θ̇ , ) is isomorphic to (Ψ, ⊆). (27)
Let ∼Θ̊ be the equivalence relation on Θ̊ defined by
  Proof Formula (27) derives from the definitions of 
(X1 , v1 ) ∼Θ̊ (X2 , v2 ) ⇔ (X1 = X2 ) (22)
and ∼Θ̇ .
(These relations gather in their equivalence classes the val-
ued connected components which correspond to similar con- ¨ and (Θ̇, )
6.3 Links Between (Θ̈, ) ˙
nected components.) Note that for any node K ∈ Θ̇, we
have ˙ which are preserved in (Θ̈, )
The nodes of (Θ̇, ) ¨ are
the sup/max-generators of I , i.e., the valued connected

i components K ∈ Θ̇ which contribute effectively to the
[K]∼Θ̇ = [K]∼Θ (23) (re)construction of I via their associated cylinder func-
tion CK (see Formulae (13) and (17)). This property can
Broadly speaking, any set of nodes [K]∼Θ of (Θ, ) leads
˙ however be expressed without directly considering the
to a set of nodes [K]∼Θ̇ of (Θ̇, ).
relations between I and the cylinder functions induced
The links between the edges of (Θ, ) and those of
˙ are characterised as follows. by Θ̇.
(Θ̇, )
Property 6 Let K = (X, v) ∈ Θ̇. We have
Property 4 Let [K1 ]∼Θ̇ , [K2 ]∼Θ̇ be two distinct equiva-
lence classes of ∼Θ̇ . Then the following two assertions are
 
i   
equivalent
(K ∈ Θ̈) ⇔ K∈ Θ̇ ∨ X
= X
∃K1 ∈ [K1 ]∼Θ , K2 ∈ [K2 ]∼Θ , K1  K2 (24) (X  ,v  )∈K ↓ \{K}

∀K1 ∈ [K1 ]∼Θ̇ , K2 ∈ [K2 ]∼Θ̇ , K1 

˙ K2 (25) (28)

Proof First note that (Ω, ⊥) satisfies Formula (28). Let us

Proof The equivalence between Formulae (24) and (25) de- a
rives from the non-existence of X ∈ Ψ such that X1 ⊂ now suppose that K
= (Ω, ⊥). If K = (X, v) ∈  Θ̇, then

X ⊂ X2 , with K1 = (X1 , v1 ), K2 = (X2 , v2 ). for all x ∈ X, we have I (x) = v. If X
= (X ,v  )∈K ↓ \{K} X  ,

Fig. 3 (a) A multivalued image I : Ω → V with Ω ⊂ R2 , and
V = {a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m}. (d) The Hasse diagram of the
ordered set (V , ). For the sake of readability, each value of V is
associated to an arbitrary colour. (e)–(j) Thresholded images λv (I )
for v ∈ V : (e) λa (I ); (f) λb (I ) = λc (I ) = λd (I ) = λe (I ) = λf (I );
(g) λg (I ) = λi (I ) = λj (I ) = λk (I ); (h) λh (I ); (i) λl (I ); (j) λm (I ).
then, there exists x ∈ X such that I (x) = v. The a fact that
K ∈ Θ̈ then derives from Formula (13). If K ∈
/ Θ̇ and
X = (X ,v  )∈K ↓ \{K} X  , then for each x ∈ X, there ex-
ists K  ∈ K ↓ \ {K} b such that v < CK (x). Consequently,
 if for any x, y ∈ X,  {x, y} (also noted x ∨ y) (resp.
we have CK (x) < ≤ C
K  ∈K ↓ \{K} K
 (x), and then, from For-
mula (13), K ∈
/ Θ̈.
The links between Θ̇- and Θ̈-component-trees are exem-
plified in Fig. 2(n, o).
Note finally that there is no straightforward way to lo-
cally characterise the edges of Θ̈ from the ones of Θ̇. In-
deed, the existence (resp. non-existence) of an edge between
two nodes of Θ̈ depends on the non-existence (resp. exis-
tence) of a transitive path composed of successive Θ̈-edges
between these nodes.
7 About the Influence of (V , ) on Component-Graphs
In this section, we study how certain order relations 
defined on V influence the structural properties of the
component-graphs. In particular, we consider (from the
most general to the most specific) three kinds of ordered
sets, frequent in image applications: lower-piecewise lattices
(Sect. 7.1), lower-piecewise totally ordered sets (Sect. 7.2),
and totally ordered sets (Sect. 7.3).
J Math Imaging Vis
(b) The Θ̇-component-graph of I . Each node of the graph is a val-
ued connected component made of a connected component (A–F) of
a thresholded image depicted in (e)–(j), and a value corresponding to
the associated colour in (d). (c) The “compact” Θ̇-component-graph
˙ of I , which has the same structure as (Ψ, ⊆) (see Prop-
(Θ̇/∼Θ̇ , )
erty 5) (Color figure online)
7.1 (V , ) is a Lower-Piecewise Lattice
An ordered set (X, ) is an upper- (resp. lower-)semilattice


{x, y} (also noted x ∧ y)) exists. It is a lattice if it is
both an upper- and a lower-semilattice.
An ordered set (X, ) is an upper- (resp. lower-)piecewi-
se lattice if for any x ∈ X, the ordered set (x ↑ , ) (resp.
(x ↓ , )) is a lattice. Note that an upper- (resp. lower-)
semilattice is an upper- (resp. lower-)piecewise lattice, but
the converse is not true in general.
In this section, we assume that (V , ) is a lower-
piecewise lattice.
7.1.1 Structure of the Θ̊-Component-Graphs
The Θ- component-graphs inherit from the structure of
(V , ).
Property 7 Let (V , ) be a lower-piecewise lattice. Then
(Θ, ) is an upper-piecewise lattice. (29)
a
Proof Let K = (X, v) ∈  Θ. It derives from Property 2
that (K ↑ , ) is a lattice. Since for any x ∈ X where (X, )
J Math Imaging Vis

is a lattice, (x ↑ , ) is still a lattice, (Θ, ) is an upper- Proof From Formula (32), for each K ∈ Θ̇, we have
piecewise lattice. [K]∼Θ̇ = {K}. The result then follows from Property 5.

As a corollary, we have the following property, related to Moreover, by extending the relation  (and then ) from
the structure of the equivalence classes of ∼Θ . Θ to Θ/∼Θ as follows
k
 
k 
 
Property 8 Let (V , ) be a lower-piecewise lattice. Let [K1 ]∼Θ  [K2 ]∼Θ ⇔ [K1 ]∼Θ  [K2 ]∼Θ (34)
K ∈ Θ, then
  we have the following property.
[K]∼Θ ,  is a lower-semilattice. (30)
Property 11 If (V , ) is a lower-piecewise lattice, then
a
Proof Let K = (X, v). Let K  = (Y, u) ∈  Θ such that
Y ⊆ X. From Property 7, (K ↑ , ) is a lattice. Moreover (Θ/∼Θ , ) is isomorphic to (Θ̇, ). (35)
we have [K]∼Θ ⊆ K ↑ . As (V , ) is a lower-piecewise
lattice, (u↓ , ) is a lattice. Let (X, v1 ), (X, v2 ) ∈ [K]∼Θ . Proof The proof derives from the equality between any
c
We have X ⊆ λv1 ∨ v2 (I ), and then, from Property (P3), K ∈ Θ̇ and  [K]∼Θ .
X ∈ C[λv1 ∨ v2 (I )]. Consequently, we have (X, v1 ∨ v2 ) ∈
[K]∼Θ , and the result follows. This identification is completed by the fact that for all
K ∈ Θ̇, ([K]∼Θ , ) is a lower-semilattice (Property 8), and
by the following property.
It then derives from this property that the Θ̇-component-
graphs also inherit from the structure of (V , ). Property 12 Let (V , ) be a lower-piecewise lattice. For
all K1 , K2 ∈ Θ (with [K1 ]∼Θ
= [K2 ]∼Θ ) we have
Property 9 Let (V , ) be a lower-piecewise lattice. Then
k
 
k 
(Θ̇, ) is an upper-piecewise lattice. (31) (K1  K2 ) ⇒ ˙
[K1 ]∼Θ  [K2 ]∼Θ (36)

Proof The result derives from the fact that (Θ, ) is an
upper-piecewise lattice and that ([K]∼Θ , ) admits a mini-
mum for any K ∈ Θ.
Note that, in general, (Θ̈, ) is not an upper-piecewise
lattice. These properties are exemplified in Fig. 4.
7.1.2 Links Between Θ- and Θ̇-Component-Graphs
Proof The result derives from Property 4.
Broadly speaking, all the edges between two nodes of
(Θ, ) associated to a same connected component disappear
˙ while any edge between two nodes of (Θ, ) as-
in (Θ̇, ),
sociated to distinct connected components lead to edges be-
tween the nodes of (Θ̇, )˙ respectively associated to these
two distinct connected components. These links between
Θ- and Θ̇-component-trees are exemplified in Fig. 4(r, s).

Under the current hypotheses (see Property 8), Formula (12) 7.2 (V , ) is a Lower-Piecewise Totally Ordered Set
can be rewritten as
We say that an order relation  on a set X is upper-

 
j   (resp. lower-)piecewise total (and that (X, ) is an upper-

Θ̇ = X, v X ∈ Ψ (32) (resp. lower-)piecewise totally ordered set) if for any x ∈ X,
X∈C [λv (I )] (x ↑ , ) (resp. (x ↓ , )) is a totally ordered set.
In this section, we assume that (V , ) is a lower-
This formula leads to the following result. piecewise totally ordered set. Note that (V , ) is then also a
lower-piecewise lattice.
Property 10 Let (V , ) be a lower-piecewise lattice. By
considering the bijection between Θ̇ and Ψ which asso- 7.2.1 Structure of the Θ̊-Component-Graphs
ciates any node (X, v) to X,
Under the current hypotheses, the result of Property 2 is
(Θ̇, ) is isomorphic to (Ψ, ⊆). (33) strengthened.
 J Math Imaging Vis

Fig. 4 (a) A multivalued image

I : Ω → V with Ω ⊂ R2 , and
V ⊆ Z2 , equipped with the
lexicographic order relation.
(b) The Hasse diagram of the
ordered set (V , ). For the sake
of readability, each value of V is
associated to an arbitrary colour.
(c)–(q) Thresholded images
λv (I ) for v ∈ V . (r) The
Θ-component-graph of I . The
letters (A–AC) in nodes
correspond to the associated
connected components (c)–(q).
(s) The Θ̇-component-graph
of I . The nodes H, M, N and X
are associated to the sets of
nodes {D, H}, {E, I, J, M},
{F, K, L, N} and {O, S, T, X}
in (r), respectively. (t) The
Θ̈-component-graph of I . The
nodes B and C, which were
present in (s) have disappeared,
since they are spatially
surrounded by {H, M} and
{G, N}, respectively (Color
figure online)

Property 13 Let K = (X, v) ∈ Θ. By considering the bijec- Property 14 Let (V , ) be a lower-piecewise totally or-
tion σ : K ↑ → v ↓ , dered set. Then
 ↑   
K , is isomorphic to v ↓ ,  . (37)
(Θ̊, ) is an upper-piecewise totally ordered set. (38)
Proof The result derives from the totality of  on v ↓ .
Proof The result derives from Property 13 and the fact
The Θ̊-component-graphs then inherit from the structure that any subset of a totally ordered set is itself totally or-
of (V , ). dered.
J Math Imaging Vis

Fig. 5 (a) A multivalued image

I : Ω → V with Ω ⊂ R2 , and
V = {a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j }.
(b) The Hasse diagram of a
lower-piecewise totally ordered
set (V , ). For the sake of
readability, each value of V is
associated to an arbitrary colour.
(c)–(l) Thresholded images
λv (I ) for v ∈ V . (m) The
Θ-component-graph of I . The
letters (A–N) in nodes
correspond to the associated
connected components (c)–(l).
(n) The Θ̇-component-graph
of I . The nodes M and N are
associated, in (m), to “linear
parts” {H,M} and {G,N}
(Properties 15 and 16). (o) The
Θ̈-component-graph of I (Color
figure online)

Under the current hypotheses, the Θ̊-component-graphs j

 
have a tree structure (of root (Ω, ⊥)), as illustrated in ˙ K2 ) ⇒
(K1  [K1 ]∼Θ  K2 (41)
Fig. 5(a, m–o).
Proof The result derives from Properties 12 and 15.
7.2.2 Links Between Θ- and Θ̇-Component-Graphs
Broadly speaking, the branching points of the Θ-compo-
Since (V , ) is a lower-piecewise lattice, all the properties nent-graph are preserved in the associated Θ̇-component-
of Sect. 7.1 remain valid here, and in particular Properties 10 graph, while each node of Θ̇ is associated to a linear part of
and 11. Moreover, Properties 8 and 12 are strengthened by the Θ-component-graph. These properties are illustrated in
the following ones. Fig. 5(m, n).

Property 15 Let (V , ) be a lower-piecewise totally or- 7.3 (V , ) is a Totally Ordered Set

dered set. Let K ∈ Θ̇. Then
  In this section, we assume that (V , ) is a totally ordered
[K]∼Θ ,  is totally ordered. (39)
set. The case of grey-level images is then matched here.
Note that (V , ) is also a lower-piecewise totally ordered
Proof The result derives from Property 8 and the lower- set. Consequently, all the properties of Sects. 7.1 and 7.2
piecewise totality of . remain valid here, and in particular Properties 10 and 14.
Moreover, Property 10 is strengthened by the following
Property 16 Let (V , ) be a lower-piecewise totally or- one.
dered set. For all K1 , K2 (with [K1 ]∼Θ
= [K2 ]∼Θ ) we have

k
  Property 17 Let (V , ) be a totally ordered set. Then
(K1  K2 ) ⇒ ˙ K2
[K1 ]∼Θ  (40)
(Θ̇, ) = (Θ̈, ) (42)
 J Math Imaging Vis

Fig. 6 (a) The grey-level image

I : Ω → V of Fig. 1(a).
(d)–(h) Thresholded images
λv (I ) ⊆ Ω (in white) for v
varying from 0 to 4. (b) The
Θ-component-graph of I .
(c) The Θ̇-/Θ̈-component-
graphs of I , which are
isomorphic to its
component-tree (see Fig. 1(b)).
The letters (A–P) in nodes
correspond to the associated
connected components (c)–(g)

Table 1 Component-graphs/tree definitions, according to (V , )

(V , ) (Θ, ) (Θ̇, ) (Θ̇/∼Θ̇ , ) (Θ̈, ) (Ψ, ⊆)
Totally ordered G Ġ, G̈ T
Lower-piecewise totally ordered G Ġ G̈
Lower-piecewise lattice G Ġ G̈
Other G Ġ Ġ (compact) G̈

Table 2 Isomorphism relations, according to (V , )

(V , ) (Θ, ) (Θ̇, ) (Θ̇/∼Θ̇ , ) (Ψ, ⊆) (Θ̈, )
Totally ordered Isomorphic
Lower-piecewise totally ordered Isomorphic
Lower-piecewise lattice Isomorphic
Other Isomorphic

Table 3 Nature of the ordered sets, according to (V , )

(V , ) (Θ, ) (Θ̇, ) (Θ̇/∼Θ̇ , ) (Ψ, ⊆) (Θ̈, )
Totally ordered Upper-piecewise totally ordered
Lower-piecewise totally ordered Upper-piecewise totally ordered
Lower-piecewise lattice Upper-piecewise lattice
Other

Proof The result derives from Property 6 and Proper- Proof Formula (43) derives from Properties 10 and 17. For-
ties (P2) and (P3). mula (44) is a rewriting of Formulae (7) and (17).

From the following property, we finally guarantee the 8 Summary

compliance between the concepts of component-tree and
component-graphs, as illustrated in Fig. 6. 8.1 Main Properties

Property 18 Let I : Ω → V be a grey-level image, and T Table 1 describes the component-graphs/tree defined by the
its component-tree. Then different ordered sets induced by Θ̊ and Ψ . Tables 2 and 3
summarise the isomorphism relations between them, and the
Ġ, G̈ are isomorphic to T (43) nature of their order. These properties are classified accord-
ing to the nature of the ordered set (V , ).
and
8.2 Space Complexity
≤
j ≤
j
I= C(X,m(X)) = CK (44) From an algorithmic point of view (and, a fortiori, from an
X∈Ψ K∈Θ̊ applicative one), the size of the Θ̊-component-graph G̊ of
J Math Imaging Vis
an image I : Ω → V strongly conditions the ability to pro-
cess this image via a filtering framework relying on G̊. From
a theoretical point of view, we have the following upper-
bounds for the number of nodes of G̊
4. Hartigan, J.A.: Statistical theory in clustering. J. Classif. 2(1), 63–
76 (1985)
5. Hanusse, P., Guillataud, P.: Sémantique des images par analyse
dendronique. In: RFIA, Proceedings, pp. 577–588 (1991)
6. Chen, L., Berry, M.W., Hargrove, W.W.: Using dendronal sig-
  natures for feature extraction and retrieval. Int. J. Imaging Syst.
|Θ| = O |Φ|.|V | (45) Technol. 11(4), 243–253 (2000)
  7. Mattes, J., Demongeot, J.: Efficient algorithms to implement the
|Θ̇| = O |Φ|.|V | (46) confinement tree. In: DGCI, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Com-
 
|Θ̈| = O |Φ| (47)
where Φ ⊆ 2Ω is the set of all the flat zones of I , with
thus |Φ| ≤ |Ω| (and generally, |Φ|  |Ω|). From a prac-
tical point of view, for real images, the actual number of
nodes in the Θ̊-component-graph of an image I : Ω → V
will be generally (much) lower than these bounds, since it
will depend on |Φ|, |V |, but also on the structure of the im-
age itself, and in particular the number of its maxima and
their “height”, with respect to (V , ). In particular, we will
have
  
|Θ̈| ≤ |Θ̇| ≤ |Θ| ≤ σ (K)↓  (48)
a
K∈ Θ ings, pp. 41–44 (2007)
9 Conclusion
The notion of component-graph has been proposed as an ex-
tension of the notion of component-tree for images taking
their values in any (partially or totally) ordered sets. Some
structural properties of three variants of component-graphs
have been investigated, in particular for value spaces which
are likely to appear in real images (e.g., piecewise totally
ordered sets or lattices).
In further works, we will propose to generalise the stan-
dard antiextensive grey-level image filtering framework
based on component-trees [8, 15], thus relaxing the con-
straints linked to total orderings on image values. In par-
ticular, the component-graphs(s) construction and the non-
trivial issue of image reconstruction will be discussed [47].
Acknowledgements The research leading to these results has re-
ceived funding from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche
(Grant Agreement ANR-10-BLAN-0205).
References
1. Naegel, B., Passat, N.: Component-trees and multi-value im-
ages: a comparative study. In: ISMM, Proceedings. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, vol. 5720, pp. 261–271. Springer, Berlin
(2009)
2. Passat, N., Naegel, B.: An extension of component-trees to partial
orders. In: ICIP, Proceedings, pp. 3981–3984 (2009)
3. Wishart, D.: Mode analysis: a generalization of the nearest neigh-
bor. In: Numerical Taxonomy, pp. 282–319. Academic Press, San
Diego (1969)
puter Science, vol. 1953, pp. 392–405. Springer, Berlin (2000)
8. Salembier, P., Oliveras, A., Garrido, L.: Anti-extensive connected
operators for image and sequence processing. IEEE Trans. Image
Process. 7(4), 555–570 (1998)
9. Najman, L., Talbot, H. (eds.): Mathematical Morphology: from
Theory to Applications. ISTE/J. Wiley, New York (2010)
10. Salembier, P., Wilkinson, M.H.F.: Connected operators: a re-
view of region-based morphological image processing techniques.
IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 26(6), 136–157 (2009)
11. Breen, E.J., Jones, R.: Attribute openings, thinnings, and granu-
lometries. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 64(3), 377–389 (1996)
12. Najman, L., Couprie, M.: Building the component tree in quasi-
linear time. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 15(11), 3531–3539
(2006)
13. Berger, C., Géraud, T., Levillain, R., Widynski, N., Baillard, A.,
Bertin, E.: Effective component tree computation with application
to pattern recognition in astronomical imaging. In: ICIP, Proceed-
14. Wilkinson, M.H.F., Gao, H., Hesselink, W.H., Jonker, J.E., Mei-
jster, A.: Concurrent computation of attribute filters on shared
memory parallel machines. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. In-
tell. 30(10), 1800–1813 (2008)
15. Jones, R.: Connected filtering and segmentation using component
trees. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 75(3), 215–228 (1999)
16. Dokládal, P., Bloch, I., Couprie, M., Ruijters, D., Urtasun, R., Gar-
nero, L.: Topologically controlled segmentation of 3D magnetic
resonance images of the head by using morphological operators.
Pattern Recognit. 36(10), 2463–2478 (2003)
17. Ouzounis, G.K., Wilkinson, M.H.F.: Mask-based second-
generation connectivity and attribute filters. IEEE Trans. Pattern
Anal. Mach. Intell. 29(6), 990–1004 (2007)
18. Passat, N., Naegel, B., Rousseau, F., Koob, M., Dietemann,
J.L.: Interactive segmentation based on component-trees. Pattern
Recognit. 44(10–11), 2539–2554 (2011)
19. Mattes, J., Richard, M., Demongeot, J.: Tree representation for im-
age matching and object recognition. In: DGCI, Proceedings. Lec-
ture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1568, pp. 392–405. Springer,
Berlin (1999)
20. Mosorov, V.: A main stem concept for image matching. Pattern
Recognit. Lett. 26(8), 1105–1117 (2005)
21. Alajlan, N., Kamel, M.S., Freeman, G.H.: Geometry-based im-
age retrieval in binary image databases. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Mach. Intell. 30(6), 1003–1013 (2008)
22. Urbach, E.R., Roerdink, J.B.T.M., Wilkinson, M.H.F.: Connected
shape-size pattern spectra for rotation and scale-invariant classi-
fication of gray-scale images. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach.
Intell. 29(2), 272–285 (2007)
23. Westenberg, M.A., Roerdink, J.B.T.M., Wilkinson, M.H.F.: Vol-
umetric attribute filtering and interactive visualization using the
max-tree representation. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 16(12),
2943–2952 (2007)
24. Menotti, D., Najman, L., de Albuquerque Araújo, A.: 1D compo-
nent tree in linear time and space and its application to gray-level
image multithresholding. In: ISMM, Proceedings, INPE, vol. 1,
pp. 437–448 (2007)
25. Naegel, B., Wendling, L.: A document binarization method based
on connected operators. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 31(11), 1251–
1259 (2010)
 J Math Imaging Vis

26. Urbach, E.R., Boersma, N.J., Wilkinson, M.H.F.: Vector attribute 44. Braga-Neto, U., Goutsias, J.: Connectivity on complete lattices:
filters. In: ISMM, Proceedings. Computational Imaging and Vi- new results. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 85(1), 22–53 (2002)
sion, vol. 30, pp. 95–104. Springer, Berlin (2005) 45. Ronse, C.: Idempotent block splitting on partial partitions, I: Iso-
27. Aptoula, E., Lefèvre, S.: A comparative study on multivariate tone operators. Order 28(2), 273–306 (2011)
mathematical morphology. Pattern Recognit. 40(11), 2914–2929 46. Caselles, V., Monasse, P.: Geometric Description of Images as To-
(2007) pographic Maps. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 29. Springer,
28. Ronse, C., Agnus, V.: Morphology on label images: flat-type op- Berlin (2010)
erators and connections. J. Math. Imaging Vis. 22(2), 283–307 47. Naegel, B., Passat, N.: Toward connected filtering based on
(2005) component-graphs. In: ISMM, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in
29. Barnett, V.: The ordering of multivariate data. J. R. Stat. Soc., Ser. Computer Science, vol. 7883, pp. 350–361. Springer, Berlin
A, Stat. Soc. 139(3), 318–354 (1976) (2013)
30. Goutsias, J., Heijmans, H.J.A.M., Sivakumar, K.: Morphologi-
cal operators for image sequences. Comput. Vis. Image Underst.
62(3), 326–346 (1995) Nicolas Passat was born in 1978.
31. Talbot, H., Evans, C., Jones, R.: Complete ordering and multivari- He studied computer science at the
ate mathematical morphology. In: ISMM, Proceedings, pp. 27–34. Université d’Orléans and the Uni-
Kluwer Academic, Norwell (1998) versité Strasbourg 1 (M.Sc., 2002;
32. Aptoula, E., Lefèvre, S.: On lexicographical ordering in multivari- Ph.D., 2005, Habilitation, 2011),
ate mathematical morphology. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 29(2), 109– specialising in image analysis. In
118 (2008) 2006, he worked at the Univer-
33. Angulo, J.: Geometric algebra colour image representations and sité Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, as a
derived total orderings for morphological operators—Part I: post-doctoral fellow. Between 2006
Colour quaternions. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 21(1), 33– and 2012, he worked at the Univer-
48 (2010) sité de Strasbourg, as an assistant
34. Gimenez, D., Evans, A.N.: An evaluation of area morphology professor. Since 2012, he has been
scale-spaces for colour images. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. professor at the Université de Reims
110(1), 32–42 (2008) Champagne-Ardenne. His scientific
35. Soille, P.: Constrained connectivity for hierarchical image parti- interests include mathematical mor-
tioning and simplification. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. phology, discrete topology, medical imaging and remote sensing.
30(7), 1132–1145 (2008)
36. Mazo, L., Passat, N., Couprie, M., Ronse, C.: Paths, homotopy Benoît Naegel was born in 1978.
and reduction in digital images. Acta Appl. Math. 113(2), 167– He studied computer science at
193 (2011) the Université Strasbourg 1 (M.Sc.,
37. Maunder, C.R.F.: Algebraic Topology. Dover, New York (1996) 2000; Ph.D., 2004), specialising in
38. Stong, R.E.: Finite topological spaces. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. image analysis. In 2005, he worked
123(25), 325–340 (1966) at the University of Applied Sci-
39. Rosenfeld, A.: Connectivity in digital pictures. J. Assoc. Comput. ences of Geneva as a research as-
Mach. 17(1), 146–160 (1970) sistant. Between 2007 and 2011, he
40. Kong, T.Y., Rosenfeld, A.: Digital topology: introduction and sur- worked at the Université Nancy 1, as
vey. Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 48(3), 357–393 (1989) an assistant professor. Since 2011,
41. Kovalevsky, V.A.: Finite topology as applied to image analysis. he has been assistant professor at the
Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 46(2), 141–161 (1989) Université de Strasbourg. His sci-
42. Ronse, C.: Set-theoretical algebraic approaches to connectivity in entific interests include mathemati-
continuous or digital spaces. J. Math. Imaging Vis. 8(1), 41–58 cal morphology, document analysis,
(1998) medical imaging and remote sens-
43. Serra, J.: Connectivity on complete lattices. J. Math. Imaging Vis. ing.
9(3), 231–251 (1998)