Local binary features for texture classification: Taxonomy and experimental study

Abstract

Local Binary Patterns (LBP) have emerged as one of the most prominent and widely studied local texture descriptors. Truly a large number of LBP variants has been proposed, to the point that it can become overwhelming to grasp their respective strengths and weaknesses, and there is a need for a comprehensive study regarding the prominent LBP-related strategies. New types of descriptors based on multistage convolutional networks and deep learning have also emerged. In different papers the performance comparison of the proposed methods to earlier approaches is mainly done with some well-known texture datasets, with differing classifiers and testing protocols, and often not using the best sets of parameter values and multiple scales for the comparative methods. Very important aspects such as computational complexity and effects of poor image quality are often neglected. In this paper, we provide a systematic review of current LBP variants and propose a taxonomy to more clearly group the prominent alternatives. Merits and demerits of the various LBP features and their underlying connections are also analyzed. We perform a large scale performance evaluation for texture classification, empirically assessing forty texture features including thirty two recent most promising LBP variants and eight non-LBP descriptors based on deep convolutional networks on thirteen widely-used texture datasets. The experiments are designed to measure their robustness against different classification challenges, including changes in rotation, scale, illumination, viewpoint, number of classes, different types of image degradation, and computational complexity. The best overall performance is obtained for the Median Robust Extended Local Binary Pattern (MRELBP) feature. For textures with very large appearance variations, Fisher vector pooling of deep Convolutional Neural Networks is clearly the best, but at the cost of very high computational complexity. The sensitivity to image degradations and computational complexity are among the key problems for most of the methods considered.

Automatic Classification of Prostate Cancer Gleason Scores from Digitized Whole Slide Tissue Biopsies

“…After computing CLBP S and CLBP M for each pixel in image block B i , the rotation invariant uniform riu2 encoding scheme [15] is applied, which reduces the values of CLBP S and CLBP M from the range 0 ∼ 2 p − 1 to 0 ∼ p + 1. For more details about riu2 encoding scheme, please refer to references [15][16][17]. In the second row of Fig.…”

Convolutional Recognition of Dynamic Textures With Preliminary Categorization

“…Many methods, such as the local spatiotemporal filtering using an oriented energy (Wildes and Bergen, 2000), normal flow pattern estimation , spacetime texture analysis (Derpanis and Wildes, 2012), global spatiotemporal transforms (Li et al, 2009), model-based methods (Doretto et al, 2004. ), fractal analysis (Xu et al, 2011), wavelet multifractal analysis (Ji et al, 2013), and spatiotemporal extension of the LBPs (Liu et al, 2017), are concerned to this group. The discriminative methods prevail on the generative methods due to their robustness to the environmental changes.…”

Perceptual Texture Similarity for Machine Intelligence Applications

“…On the other hand, the book Haindl et al [6] gives an excellent review about modeling both static and dynamic textures. A long with this, there are also other reviews that cover certain scope of texture analysis and perception, such as [7,8,9,10,11].…”