Object Detection Using Correlation
Chitra Mahale ,Ruchir Kanakia,Shraddha Shah, & Piyush Jain
Sardar Patel Institute of Technology, Mumbai University, Andheri(W),Mumbai-400056,India.
Abstract—The object detection method used here is that
of template matching, by point to point correlation of a
model pattern with the image pattern. Object detection
and recognition is formulated as a classification
problem. The image is partitioned into a set of
overlapping windows, and a decision is taken at each
window about if it contains a target object or not. Each
window is represented by extracting a large number of
features that encode information such as boundaries,
textures, color, spatial structure. The classification
function, that maps an image window into a binary
decision, is learnt using methods such as SVMs, boosting
or neural networks.
Keywords-;
INTRODUCTION
Traditional approaches to object detection only look at
local pieces of the image, whether it be within a sliding
window or the regions around an interest point detector.
However, such local pieces can be ambiguous, especially
when the object of interest is small, or imaging conditions
are otherwise unfavourable. This ambiguity can be reduced
by using global features of the image which we call the
“gist” of the scene — as an additional source of evidence.
We show that by combining local and global features, we
get significantly improved detection rates. In addition, since
the gist is much cheaper to compute than most local
detectors, we can potentially gain a large increase in speed
as well.We have applied LMS algorithm to track the
fundamental frequency of a random sinusoidal signal of a
particular frequency given as an input. Finally based on the
simulations results have been noted and conclusions have
been drawn based on observation and analysis . The most
common approach to generic object detection/ localization
is to slide a window cross the image , and to classify each
such local window as containing the target or background.
This approach has been successfully used to detect rigid
objects such as faces and cars , and has even been applied to
articulated objects such as pedestrians . A natural extension
of this approach is to use such sliding window classifiers to
detect object parts, and then to assemble the parts into a
whole object . Another popular approach is to extract local
interest points from the image, and then to classify each of
the regions around these points, rather than looking at all
possible subwindows . A weakness shared by all of the
above approaches is that they can fail when local image
information is insufficient e.g. because the target is very
small or highly occluded. We consider two closely related
tasks: Object-presence detection and object localization.
Object-presence detection means determining if one or more
instances of an object class are present (at any location or
scale) in an image. This is sometimes called “image
classification”, and can be useful for object-based image
retrieval. Formally we define it as estimating P(O = 1|f(I)),
where O = 1 indicates the presence of class O and f(I) is a
set of features (either local or global or both) extracted from
the image. In such cases, looking at parts of the image
outside of the patch to be classified that is, by using the
context of the image as a whole can help. By generic
detection, we mean detecting classes (categories) of objects,
such as any car, any face, etc. rather than finding a specific
object (class instance), such as a particular car, or a
particular face. For one of the most successful approaches to
the instance-level detection problem. The category-level
detection problem is generally considered harder, because of
the need to generalize over intra-class variation. That is,
approaches which memorize idiosyncratic details of an
object (such as particular surface pattern or texture) will not
work; rather, successful techniques need to focus on generic
object properties such as shape.
Following standard practice, we first convolve each image
with a bank of filters (shown in Figure 2). These filters were
chosen by hand, but are similar to what many other groups
have used. After filtering the images, we then extract image
fragments from one of the filtered outputs (chosen at
random). The size and location of these fragments is chosen
randomly, but is constrained to lie inside the annotated
bounding box. (This approach is similar to the random
intensity patches used in [VNU03], and the random filtered
patches used in [SWP05].)We record the location from
which the fragment was extracted by creating a spatial mask
centered on the object, and placing a blurred delta function
at the relative offset of the fragment. This process is
illustrated in Figure 3.We repeate this process for multiple
filters and fragments, thus creating a large (N ∼ 150)
dictionary of features. Thus the i’th dictionary entry consists
of a filter, f i, a patch fragment Pi, and a Gaussian mask gi.
We can create a feature vector for every pixel in the image
in parallel as follows:
vi = [(I ∗ fi) ⊗ Pi] ∗ gi
where ∗ represents convolution, ⊗ represents normalized
cross-correlation and v i(x) is the i’th component of the
feature vector at pixel x. The intuition behind this is as
follows: the normalized cross-correlation detects places
where patch Pi occurs, and these “vote” for the center of the
object using the gi masks (c.f., the Hough transform). Note
that the D ∼ 10 positive images used to create the
dictionary of features are not used for anything else.
 LEAST MEAN SQUARE ALGORITHM
Figure 1 shows that a variable filter extracts an estimate of
the desired signal
Least mean squares (LMS) algorithms are a class
of adaptive filter used to mimic a desired filter by finding
the filter coefficients that relate to producing the least mean
squares of the error signal (difference between the desired
and the actual signal). It is a stochastic gradient
descent method in that the filter is only adapted based on the
error at the current time. It was invented in 1960
by Stanford University professor Bernard Widrow and his
first Ph.D. student, Ted Hoff.
The block diagram, shown in the above figure, serves as a
foundation for particular adaptive filter realizations, such
as Least Mean Squares (LMS) and Recursive Least Squares
(RLS). The idea behind the block diagram is that a variable
filter extracts an estimate of the desired signal. The block
diagram, shown in the following figure, serves as a
foundation for particular adaptive filter realizations, such
as Least Mean Squares (LMS) and Recursive Least Squares
(RLS). The idea behind the block diagram is that a variable
filter extracts an estimate of the desired signal.
Suppose a hospital is recording a heart beat (an ECG),
which is being corrupted by a 50 Hz noise (the frequency
coming from the power supply in many countries).
One way to remove the noise is to filter the signal with
a notch filter at 50 Hz. However, due to slight variations in
the power supply to the hospital, the exact frequency of the
power supply might (hypothetically) wander between 47 Hz
and 53 Hz. A static filter would need to remove all the
frequencies between 47 and 53 Hz, which could excessively
degrade the quality of the ECG since the heart beat would
also likely have frequency components in the rejected range.
To circumvent this potential loss of information, an adaptive
filter could be used. The adaptive filter would take input
both from the patient and from the power supply directly
and would thus be able to track the actual frequency of the
noise as it fluctuates. Such an adaptive technique generally
allows for a filter with a smaller rejection range, which
means, in our case, that the quality of the output signal is
more accurate for medical diagnoses.
The LMS algorithm for a pth order system can be
summarized as follows:
P= filter order
u= step size
Initialization- h(0)=0 ;
Computation- h(n+1)= h(n)+u e*(n) x(n)
where e(n)= d(n)-hH(n) x(n);
x(n)=[x(n),x(n-1).,x(n-p+1)]T
hH(n) is the hermitian transpose of h(n)
RESULT ANALYSIS
The input signal used for the simulation is a random
sinusoidal signal generated and noise is superimposed on
this sinusoidal signal. The input signal can be represented
mathematically by the following equation:
sig=sin(T)+0.5*cos(t*2)+0.25*cos(t*3)+randn(N/3,1).*snr
where snr = signal to noise ratio ; t = time period
For our simulation purpose we had taken N=1200,
snr=10^(-18/20) .
We generated the above signal and added noise and then
applied LMS algorithm to track the fundamental frequency
of the original signal. The frequency response of the input
signal is shown in the diagram below.
Figure 1 shows the magnitude and phase spectrum of input
signal
We observed the output of the adaptive filter for various
values of sampling frequency and found that for the above
signal we observed optimum output for sampling frequency
equal to 10Khz. When the sampling frequency is varied
between 8Khz to 16Khz we get the desired output that is the
adaptive filter can track the fundamental frequency of the
given input signal. Below 8Khz and above 16Khz the filter
is not able to track the fundamental frequency of the input
and we get noise at the output. The output of the filter
contains more harmonics as we increase the sampling
frequency. We can draw these conclusions on the basis of
the analysis of the output taken at various values of
sampling frequency.

Figure 2 shows the output of the notch filter at Fs=10Khz
and frequency response of notch filter
Figure 3 shows the output of the filter at Fs=16Khz and
frequency response of the notch filter.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of a recently proposed adaptive frequency
estimation algorithm, we have developed an algorithm able
to track the frequency of a sinusoidal component of a signal.
The theoretical analysis of the new algorithm showed that it
is unbiased. Moreover, for the same noise level and the
same convergence speed, is observed within a particular
frequency band.
REFERENCES
1] V. Lottici, M. Luise, C. Saccomando, and F. Spalla,
“Blind carrier frequency tracking for filterbank multicarrier
wireless communications,” IEEE Trans. Comm., vol.
53, pp. 1762–1772, Oct 2005.
[2] M. Ferdjallah and R.E. Barr, “Adaptive digital notch
filter design on the unit circle for the removal of powerline
noise from biomedical signals,” IEEE Trans. Biomed.
Eng., vol. 41, pp. 529–536, June 1994.
[3] G. Evangelopoulos and P. Maragos, “Multiband
modulationenergy tracking for noisy speech detection,”
IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process., vol. 14, pp.
2024–2038, Nov 2004.
[4] M. Aboy, O.W. Marquez, J. McNames, R. Hornero,
Tran
Trong, and B. Goldstein, “Adaptive modeling and spectral
estimation of nonstationary biomedical signals based
on Kalman filtering,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol.
52, pp. 1485–1489, Aug. 2005.
[5] B. Carlsson and P.Handel, “A notch filter based on
recursive least squares modeling,” Signal Processing, vol.
35, pp. 231–239, Feb. 1994.
. [6] D.R. Hush, N. Ahmed, R. David, and S.D. Stearns, “An
adaptive IIR structure for sinusoidal enhancement,
frequency estimation, and detection,” IEEE Trans. Acoust.,
Speech, Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-34, pp. 1380–
1390, Dec 1986.
[7] N.I. Cho and S.U. Lee, “On the adaptive lattice notch
filter for the detection of sinusoids,” IEEE Trans. circuits
Syst. II, vol. 40, pp. 405–416, July 1993.
[8] C.C. Ko and C.P. Li, “An adaptive IIR structure for the
separation, enhancement, and tracking of multiple
sinusoids,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 42, pp. 2832–
2834, Oct. 1994.
[9] P. Tichavsky and A. Nehorai, “Comparative study of
four adaptive frequency trackers,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 45, pp. 1473–1483, June 1997.
[10] H.-E. Liao, “Two discrete oscillator based adaptive
notch filters (OSC ANFs) for noisy sinusoids,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 53, pp. 528–538, Feb 2005