P. 1
00343712

00343712

|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by Vivek Bhadouria

More info:

Published by: Vivek Bhadouria on Jan 10, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/02/2014

pdf

text

original

Fuzzy Filtering for Mixed Noise Removal During Image Processing

Shaomin Peng and Lori Lucke Department of Electrical Engineering University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 shaomin@ee.umn.edu, lucke@ee.umd.edu

Abstract. In this paper we present a new nonlinear fuzzy filter for image processing in a mixed noise environment, where both additive Gaussian noise and non-additive impulsive noise may be present. Averaging filters can effectively remove the Gaussian noise and order statistics filters or median filters can effectively remove the impulsive noise. However it is difficult to combine these filters to remove mixed noise in an imaging processing environment without blurring the image details or edges. Trying to distinguish between noise and edge information in the image is an inherently ambiguous problem and naturally leads to the development of a fuzzy filter. We use local statistics to train the membership function of a fuzzy filter for image processing to remove both Gaussian noise and impulsive noise while preserving edges. We show that such a fuzzy filter gives superior results compared to averaging filters, median filters, and other fuzzy filters. We also demonstrate the robustness of this filtering technique.

1

Introduction

The FIR filter is well known for its ability to remove Gaussian noise from signals but it does not work very well in image processing since it blurs edges within the image. Nonlinear filters such as the median filter [5, 61, or the order statistic filter [lo, 1, 81 retain edge information but are most effective at removing impulsive noise. In a mixed noise environment, where both Gaussian and impulsive noise are present, new filtering techniques must be used. Hybrid filters [l]have been suggested as one means of solving this problem. These filters may be trained to remove either Gaussian noise or impulsive noise. In a true mixed noise environment, both Gaussian and impulsive noise may be present. An adaptive filter for removing mixed noise was presented in [2]. It succeeded in removing both Gaussian and small amounts of impulsive noise while preserving edges. In this paper we explore the removal of large amounts of mixed noise, both Gaussian and varying amounts of impulsive noise, with a new nonlinear filter which uses fuzzy logic [3]. Fuzzy logic has been successfully applied to control problems. Fuzzy theory allows the inclusion of fuzzy if-then rules concerning fuzzy concepts. These rules may come from human experts or be generated automatically by matching input-output pairs through a training routine. In this paper, we automatically generate the fuzzy rules. Fuzzy filtering has been used in [4] to remove both Gaussian noise and impulsive noise from one-dimensional signals. This filter does not work well in two-dimensional image processing because it does not preserve edge information. Most images corrupted by mixed noise do not have sharp boundaries. The image pixels in a neighborhood are not corrupted by same amount of noise. This means we can not use a precise rule to distinguish the edges in the image or the signal from the noise. We use fuzzy rules to distinguish edges from noise. A new fuzzy filter is proposed which is capable of removing large amounts of mixed Gaussian and impulsive noise, while preserving edge information. We show that our fuzzy image processing filter provides superior results in the mixed noise environment when compared to linear or median filters, and when compared to the fuzzy filter in [4].

2

Fuzzy Set Definitions

We define a fuzzy set by its membership function as in [3]. Let F denote a fuzzy set. F c X. The membership function p 3 of the fuzzy set F is a function p~ : X -+ [O,11. Every element x in X has a ) p membership degree p ~ ( z E [0,1]. F is completely determined by the set of tuples F = { ( 2 , 3 ( z ) ) I z E X} The membership function, p 3 can take any shape. In this paper, we choose the 11-function, as shown in Fig. 1 as the prototype for the membership function. The shape of the 11-function coincides with the physical meaning necessary for image processing, where we want to weigh the difference of the gray level of two pixels. If the difference is ‘(small”,the membership is close to 1; if the difference is “big”, the

0-7803-1896-Xl94 $4.00 01994 IEEE

89

7 ..) near an can edge)... xm. shown in Fig. A fuzzy membership function provides significantly better results. 1. The 11-function is described mathematically as ne. Pixel xm. where Sm.n= sm. where the coordinate origin is assumed to be at the left upper corner of the image. II(Axi. are trained from the original image as described in section 4.j). Let I M M denote an M x M image corrupted by additive Gaussian noise. is located at the center of the window. .P.P and 7.. i.e. If xm.. with gray level background. then the estimation of sm.j) is taken as a crisp membership function.. described in Eq.. for x 5a for x 17 The parameters a. This membership function allows us 90 . C. is located in an area where the gray level changes abruptly (ie. we can design a fuzzy filter whose main feature is to remove both additive Gaussian noise and non-additive impulsive noise while preserving the image details. Then n).n is located at position ( m . and w ( A x i ....S ( x .nis surrounded by a flat will be a local average of x. denotes the noise. 7) is the S-function which is expressed as the following..Figure 1: II-type fuzzy set membership function.j) in Eq. it either has value 1 corresponding to a small gray level difference or value 0 corresponding to a large gray level difference. j ) is a weight function which depends on the gray level differences of the surrounding pixels. then im.....n denotes the original image signal and n. 7 + P / 2 .r-P/2.. The switching point is controlled by some threshold level. a. w(Axi. can be written as xm.n be estimated by averaging only the pixels with similar gray levels in the surrounded local area..xm. We replace w(Azi. 3 Filter Design We will design a filter first to remove Gaussian noise and then to remove both Gaussian and impulsive noise. 3 by the 11-type function. If xm.. membership is close to 0..* +nm. Usually. We define the local area or neighborhood as a window of pixels of size (2N 1) x (2N 1)) where xm...n denoted by its surrounding pixels..) = S(z. + + We estimate the output when the input is corrupted by only Gaussian noise as follows where A x i j = zi. 1. We attempt to estimate the noise by using local statistics [14]. is the gray level difference of the center pixel with a neighboring pixel. thresholding does not work well in the image processing case where the seperation of objects is ambiguous.7) forz 5 7 1 . 7 + P ) for 2 > 7 Where S(z. With these definitions.7-P. This can be expressed as However.

and L(I) is the total number of pairs of coordinates in set V . The cost is . So that Eq. However this does not work well for 2-D image processing. 1 ..xi. ~ isI the membership function at I-th iteration with the k-th discrete value of the mem.n(I) . 1 1) = nd’) + VrI&(J(Hk))l (6) p[- where p is the step size parameter and The right side of Eq. n ) ’ .xi.j} = x& ... 1. as it blurs the image. We train the membership function at K signal at position (m. we must alter our signal estimation since the averaging method does not remove impulsive noise.n xi. The new filter which 4 Training the Membership Function In this section we show how to train the membership function by using an LMS (least mean squares) 1 discrete points. 6 . . we will combine it with the averaging method. 3 + 91 . I. We use an iterative training method. use the original form a triangle function. assume the initial values of the membership function 1 array. 7 can be simplified to where V is a set including all the coordinates of the pixels xi. the authors let Axi. In [4].i m .j. the membership function IIk can be computed by using the following recursive relation. Finally.j = Xmed . which have lzm.n can be described as + where I I ~ ( A X . The training process is divided into three steps. fit the trained data to the II-function to get the parameters a . Continue the process until it converges.j. xi.n the estimated signal.to describe the “big difference” and the “small difference”between gray levels. ~ function for estimating s ~ from xm. The filtering process is adjusted as follows.. For simplicity. Let xmed be the median pixel within the window. The initial value I I k ( 0 ) is stored in a I( image to update & ( I ) at iteration 1 as in Eq. we use the instantaneous value instead of the expected value. ) bership function. Since the median filter does effectively remove impulsive noise. When both Gaussian noise and impulsive noise are present within the image. We will discuss how to automatically generate this membership function in section 4.j} min{zi.n is the desired algorithm.. 5 becomes J(&(I)) = (Sm. ( According to the LMS algorithm. Therefore the optimization problem becomes minnk J(IIk) for all k = 0 . First replace all the maximal and minimal gray level pixels in the window with Xmed Xmed - Xmed to generate a new window of pixels.. Since the membership function is symmetric around the vertical axis. we only train its right half.. Second. Here we solve this problem by using a different strategy.jI corresponding to IIk in iteration step I. First. . n) and im. Assume Sm. / and y shown in Fig. NOW generate a new removes both Gaussian and impulsive noise can be written as - max{xi.

Gallagher Jr.” IEEE Trans. J. C. Y. June 1984.6 dB. P. 1986. ~. Zelda. Widrow. Hearn. Vol. Our filter gave significantly better results in all cases. 1965. 1981. L. J. “Exploratory Data Analysis Reading. 2 and Fig. B.” Proc. In the first case we added both Gaussian noise with a SNR equal to 8. Speech. and Signal Proc. Coyle. Astola.” MA: Addison-Wesley.6. May 1993. C. E. Acousi. In2 ’1 Conf. Vol. G. “Digital Image Enhancement and Noise Filtering by Use of Local Statistics.1201-1222. R u w . J . “Adaptive Noise Cancelling: Principles and Applications. Y. “A New Class of Nonlinear Filters-Neural Filters. J. pp.IV309-IV312. an averaging filter. For the second simulation we corrupted the same images with both Gaussian noise. 3 for the first simulation case. Glover. Arakawa. on Circuits and Sysiems. We compared our simulations with results obtained by filtering with a median filter.. J. C. “A Theoretical Analysis of the Properties of Median Filters. Neuvo. A C O U S Speech. C. J .571-576. Speech. No. 92 . Williams. PAMI-2. “A Nonlinear Digital Filter Using Fuzzy Clustering.” to be presented at the 1994 Int’l Symp. J. 6.338-352. March 1980. Goodlin. Neuvo. Neuvo. We used a 5 x 5 neighborhood window for all the simulations. Gallagher. Coyle. pp. 63. Lin. Nonlinear Edge-Preserving Filtering. Wendt. Table 1: MSE and MAE for several filtering methods applied to two different noisy conditions. June 1990. of ihe IEEE. K.” Proc. Signal Processing.. “Adaptive FIR-WOS Filtering.21%. 3. McGillem. and Signal Processing. “An Adaptive. 8 . on Signal Processing. “Generalized Stack Filters and Mean Absolute Error Nonlinear Filtering. Ramponi.1136-1141. ASSP-29.” IEEE Trans. and Lakeview. The four density levels we used were 24. Wise. Dec. Zadeh. Pomalaza-Raez. Vol.J. Vol. on Circuiis and Sysiems. “Stack Filters. Astola. Tukey. Lucke. of ihe IEEE Ini’l Symp. 1993. Our results are tabulated in Table 1. We also show the filtered images in Fig. Vol. pp.” Information Theory and Control.” IEEE Trans. Vol. G. pp. on Patiem Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 4. pp. Kaunitz.1-5. “Nonlinear Effects in a Fuzzy Image Processing System. 2637-2640. ASSP-34.6 dB and impulsive (salt and pepper) noise which varied at four different intensity levels across the image. J. Lee. 3. E. We trained the membership function using a single image.” IEEE Trans. Y. and Signal Proc. F. 1977. References [l] L. Dec. Vol. Yin. “Fuzzy Sets. with a mixture of Gaussian and impulsive noise.6. with a SNR equal to 8..41%.22%. and uniform impulsive noise at a density of 10%.(6. The remaining images were filtered using the same membership function which shows the robustness of this filtering technique.165-168. Bridge. Kroenke. No. Arakawa. L.Aug. 427-430. pp. and Signal Proc.” Proc. March 1993.’’ 1999 IEEE Winter Workshop on Nonlinear Digital Signal Processing. 41. the Lena image. May 1992. Yin. Y. on Circuiis and Systems.” IEEE Trans. J. 12.. N.5 Simulation Results We simulated two different noisy conditions. No. E. A. 2. Acousi.” IEEE ZJ-ans.. W. No. pp.D. on Acoustics. We corrupted four different images. Dong. N. . Zeidler. R. R.2-)5..C.” Proc. 1992. and the filter proposed by Arakawa in [4]. Speech. ASSP-38. McCool. “Adaptive nonlinear multivariate image filtering for mixed noise removal. of the IEEE Int’l Symp.. No. Vol. 1975. pp. L. Lena. Speech. pp.1% and 1. on Acousiics. Tang. K. ASSP-32. “Training Recursive Structures for Weighted Order Statistic Filtering. L. R.

(b) Bridge image corrupted by 8.2 dB Gaussian noise and varying impulsive noise. (b) Lena image corrupted by 8. (c) Averaging filter result.2 dB Gaussian noise and varying impulsive noise. (d) Median filter result. Figure 3: (a) Original Bridge image.Figure 2: (a) Original Lena image. (e) Filtering result by using the method suggested by Arakawa. (f) New fuzzy filter result. (c) New fuzzy filter result. 93 7 - .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->