You are on page 1of 5

Co-Occurrence based Statistical Approach for Face Recognition

Alaa Eleyan, Hasan Demirel

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Eastern Mediterranean University

{alaa.eleyan, hasan.demirel}@emu.edu.tr

Abstractthis paper introduces a new face recognition method based on the gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM). Both distributions of the intensities and information about relative position of neighbourhood pixels are carried by GLCM. Two methods have been used to extract feature vec- tors from the GLCM for face classification. The first, method extracts the well-known Haralick features to form the feature vector, where the second method directly uses GLCM by con- verting the matrix into a vector which can be used as a feature vector for the classification process. The results demonstrate that using the GLCM directly as the feature vector in the rec- ognition process outperforms the feature vector containing the statistical Haralick features. Additionally, the proposed GLCM based face recognition system outperforms the well- known techniques such as principal component analysis and linear discriminant analysis.

Index Terms— gray level co-occurrence matrix, Haralick features, face recognition.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Face recognition has always been attracting the attention of the researchers as one of the most important techniques for human identification. One of the limitations of real-time recognition systems is the computational complexity of the existing approaches. Many systems and algorithms have been introduced in the last couple of decades with high recognition rates. The general problem of these systems is their computational cost in data pre-preparation and trans- formation to another domains such as eigenspace [3][4], fisherspace[5][6], wavelet transform [10][11] and cosine transform [12]. Many researchers have used the gray-level co-occurrence matrix [13] for the extraction of texture features to be used in texture classification. Gelzinis et al. [14] presented a new approach to exploiting information available from the co-occurrence matrices computed for different distance parameter values. Attempt to extend the approach was in- troduced in [16], where a new matrix called motif co- occurrence matrix was proposed. Walker et al. [15] have proposed to form co-occurrence matrix-based features by weighted summation of co-occurrence matrix elements from localized areas of high discrimination. The colour co- occurrence histograms was used in [17] for object recogni- tion, where they used false alarm rate to adjust some algo- rithm’s parameters for optimizing the performance. The idea behind this paper is to use this co-occurrence ma- trix and its extracted features in face recognition. To the

best of our knowledge, no one has attempted to implement this method for face recognition before. The idea is simple and it is straight forward. For each face image, a feature vector is formed directly by converting the generated GLCM to a vector and used for classification. Additionally, Haralick features [13] containing 14 statistical features can be extracted from the GLCM to form a new feature vector with 14 coefficients. The GLCM method is compared with two well-known face recognition techniques. The first one is the principal com- ponent analysis (PCA) [1][2], which is the standard tech- nique used in statistical pattern recognition and signal processing for dimensionality reduction and feature extrac- tion. As patterns often contain redundant information, mapping them to a feature vector helps to get rid of redun- dancies and yet preserve most of the intrinsic information. These extracted features have great role in distinguishing input patterns. The proposed GLCM based method is also compared with the other well-known technique, linear dis- criminant analysis (LDA), which overcomes the limitations of PCA method by applying the Fisher’s linear discrimi- nant criterion. This criterion tries to maximize the ratio of the determinant of the between-class scatter matrix of the projected samples to the determinant of the within-class scatter matrix of the projected samples. Fisher discriminant analysis method groups images of the same class and sepa- rates images of different classes. Images are projected from N dimensional space (N is the number of pixels) to C di- mensional space (where C is the number of classes). Unlike the PCA method that extracts features to best repre- sent face images; the LDA method tries to find the sub- space that best discriminates different face classes and en- codes discriminatory information in a linear separable space, where the bases are not necessarily orthogonal. The paper is organized as follows: second section discusses the gray level co-occurrence matrix. Third section explains 14 well-know GLCM Haralick features. The databases are given in section four, while the experimental results, com- parison with other algorithms and discussions are given in fifth section followed by the conclusions in the final sec- tion.

II.

GRAY-LEVEL CO-OCCURRENCE MATRIX

One of the simplest approaches for describing texture is to use statistical moments of the intensity histogram of an image or region [9]. Using only histograms in calculation, will result in measures of texture that only carry informa-

611
611

tion about distribution of intensities, but not about the

relative position of pixels with respect to each other in that

texture. Using a statistical approach such as co-occurrence

matrix will help to provide valuable information about the

relative position of the neighbouring pixels in an image.

Given an image I, of size N×N, the co-occurrence, matrix

P can be defined as:

 
 

N

 

N

 

1,

if I

(

x

,

y

)

P (,

i

j

)

 

x

1

y

1

0,

otherwise

i

&

I

(

x

,

y

)

y

x

j

(1)

where the offset ( x , y ), is specifying the distance be-

tween the pixel-of-interest and its neighbour. Note that the

offset ( x , y ) parameterization makes the co-occurrence

matrix sensitive to rotation. Choosing the offset vector, so

a rotation of the image not equal to 180 degrees, will

result in a different co-occurrence matrix for the same

(rotated) image. This can be avoided by forming the co-

occurrence matrix using a set of offsets sweeping through

180 degrees at the same distance parameter to achieve a

degree of rotational invariance (i.e. [0 ] for 0 o : P hori-

zontal, [- ] for 45 o : P right diagonal, [- 0] for 90 o : P

vertical, and [- - ] for 135 o : P left diagonal).

Figure 1 shows how to generate the four cooccurrence

matrices using N g =5 levels and offsets {[0 1], [-1 1], [-1

0], [-1 -1]} defined as one neighboring pixel in the

possible four directions. We can see that two neighboring

pixels (2,1) of the input image is reflected in P H

concurrence matrix as 3, because there are 3 occurrences

of the pixel intensity value 2 and pixel intensity value 1

adjacent to each other in the input image. The neighboring

pixels (1, 2) will occur again 3 times in P H , which makes

these matrices symmetric. In the same manner, the other

three matrices P V , P LD , P RD are calculated.

represents the number of neighboring pixel pairs used in

calculating GLCM, to form a new normalized matrix p

which will be used later on in the classification process or

in generation of Haralick features.

tion about distribution of intensities, but not about the relative position of pixels with respect to
tion about distribution of intensities, but not about the relative position of pixels with respect to

(a)

tion about distribution of intensities, but not about the relative position of pixels with respect to
tion about distribution of intensities, but not about the relative position of pixels with respect to
(b) (c)
(b)
(c)

Figure 2 (a) Example from ORL Database (112×92),

  • (b) corresponding CLGM with 64 gray levels (64×64) and

  • (c) corresponding CLGM with 256 gray levels (256×256).

III.

HARALICK FEATURES

In 1973, Haralick [13] introduced 14 statistical features.

These features are generated by calculating the features for

each one of the co-occurrence matrices obtained by using

the directions 0 o , 45 o , 90 o , and 135 o , then averaging these

four values. The symbol representing the offset parame-

ter can be selected as 1 or higher value. In general value

is set to 1 as the offset parameter. A vector of these 14 sta-

tistical features is used for characterizing the co-occurrence

matrix contents. Calculation of these features can be done

using the following equations.

tion about distribution of intensities, but not about the relative position of pixels with respect to

0

1

2

3

0 1 2 3 0 3 4 2 2 1 3 4 0 3 2 1
0
1
2
3
0
3
4
2
2
1
3
4
0
3
2
1
2
1
0
3

Input image

0 1 2 3 4 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 3 1
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
3
1
0
2
0
3
0
1
1
3
2
1
1
0
2
4
0
0
1
2
0

P H (0 o )

0 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
2
4
0
0
1
1
3
0
3
1
0
1
4
0
1
1
1
0

P V (90 o )

Intensity

0 1 2 3 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
3
1
3
0
0
3
2
0
4
0
0
1
0
0

P RD (45 o )

0 1 2 3 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
1
2
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
1

P LD (135 o )

Figure 1 – Cooccurrence matrix generation for N g =5 levels and four different offsets: P H (0 o ), P V (90 o ), P RD (45 o ), and P LD (135 o ).

Notations:

p(i, j) is the (i, j)’th entry in normalized GLCM.

N g , dimension of GLCM (number of gray levels)

p x (i) and p y (j) are the marginal probabilities:

p

  • x ( )

i

N

g

y

( ,

pi

j

),

p

(

j

)

j

1

N

g

( ,

pi

j

).

i

1

is the mean of x and y ;

x

N

g

xy

ip

( ),

i

i

1

N

g

y

ip

( ).

i

i

1

x and y are the standard deviations of p x and p y , respec-

tively.

N

g

N

g

1/2

  • x

2

( )(

pii

xx

)

i

1

2

( )(

pii

yy

)

i

1

,

y

1/2

The averaged GLCM matrix can be calculated by:

p

  • x

y

(

k

)

N

g

N

g

  • i

    • 1 j

1

( ,

pi

j

);

i

jk

k

2, 3,

, 2

N

P

P

H

PP

V

RD

P

LD

4

For normalization, we

GLCM

matrix

P

by

then divide

normalization

(2) p x y each entry in the constant R, that 612
(2)
p
x
y
each entry
in
the
constant
R,
that
612

(

k

)

N

g

N

g

  • i

    • 1 j

1

( ,

pi

j

);

ijk
ijk

k

,

0,1,

N

1

 

N

N

HXY

1

g

g

( ,

p i

j

) log{

p

x

( )

i

p

y

(

j

i

1

j

1

 

N

N

g

g

HXY

2

p

( )

i

p

xy

(

j

) log{

p

( )

i

i

1

j

1

Q (,

i

j

)

N

g

k 1

N

p ik

(,

)

p

(

jk

,

)

p

x

()

ip

y

(

j

)

g

HX

i 1

( ) log{

pi

x

( )}

pi

x

 

N

g

HY

j 1

(

pj

y

) log{

(

pj

y

)}

Haralick Features:

 

N

N

f

1

g

g

(,

pi

j

)

2

.

i

1

j

1

N

1

NN

f

2

g

gg

n

0

2

n

11

ij

pij

,

|

|

ijn

.

N

g

N

g

i

x

i

y

(,

pi

j

)

 

f

3

 

.

i

1

j

1

 

x

y

N

N

f

4

g

g

2

(

i

)

(,

pi

j

)

 

i

1

j

1

N

N

f

5

g

g

1

2

(,

pi

j

)

i

1

j

1

1

i

j

2

N

f

6

g

 

kp

x

y

(

k

)

k 2

2

N

g

f

7

2

kf

6

k 2

p

x

y

(

k

)

 

2

N

g

f

8

k 2

pk

xy

(

) log{

pk

xy

(

)}

 

N

N

f

9

g

g

( ,

pi

j

) log{

( ,

pi

j

)}

i

1

j

1

N

1

N

1

f

10

g

g

[

k

lp

xy

( )]

l

2

p

xy

(

k

)

 

k

0

l

0

N

1

g

f

11

pk

xy

(

k 0

) log{

pk

xy

(

)}

 
 

f

9

HXY 1

f

12

max(

HX HY

,

)

f

13

1

exp[ 2( HXY 2 f )]

9

1/2

f

14

second largest eignvalue of Q

1/ 2

)}

p

xy

(

j

)}

HX and HY are the entropies of p x and p y , respectively.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

IV.

PROPOSED SYSTEM

We adopted two scenarios for the implementation of

GLCM based face recognition. In the first scenario, we

used the co-occurrence matrix directly by converting it into

a column vector for each image in the recognition process.

In the second scenario, we used the vector of Haralick fea-

tures extracted from the co-occurrence matrix for recogni-

tion. Figure 3 shows these proposed scenarios.

Face GLCM Classification 1 st Scenario Database GLCM Classification 2 nd Scenario Features
Face
GLCM
Classification
1 st Scenario
Database
GLCM
Classification
2 nd Scenario
Features

Figure 3 Proposed scenarios for using co-occurrence matrix and

its features for face recognition.

In the first scenario, we are using the GLCM directly after

converting it to a column vector. However, for 8-bit gray

level representation the size of this vector is 256×256,

which corresponds to a 65536 dimensional vector. The di-

mension of this vector can be reduced by reducing the

number of quantization/gray levels, N g , of the image. For

example, if N g is reduced to 16, the GLCM will be 256

(16×16) dimensional vector. The effects of dimensionality

reduction on the recognition performance are studied in the

following section.

In the second scenario, a vector of 14 Haralick features is

used to represent the given image. The size of this vector,

which is 14, is independent of the size of the GLCM.

  • V. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The simulations have been conducted on the two data sets:

FERET and ORL face databases. The standard test bed

adopted in similar studies for the FERET database [7], has

been used to test our algorithm for identification. The re-

sults are reported in terms of the standard recognition

rates (%). 600 frontal face images out of 200 subjects are

selected, where all the subjects are in the upright and fron-

tal position. Each face image is cropped to the size of

128×128 to extract the facial region and normalized to

zero mean and unit variance. In order to test the algo-

rithms, two images of each subject are randomly chosen

for training, while the remaining one is used for testing

(i.e. 400 training and 200 test images). In Figure 4 the first

two rows are the sample training images while the third

row shows samples from test images. It can be observed

from this figure that the test images contain variations in

illumination and facial expressions.

The second database used, was the face database from Oli-

vetti Research Lab [8]. This database is widely used for

evaluating face recognition algorithms. The database con-

sists of 400 images acquired from 40 persons. All images

were taken under a dark background. The images are grey

scale with a 92×112 pixels resolution.

613
613

Out of the 10 images per subject of the ORL face data-

base, first n were selected for training and the remaining

10-n were used for testing. Hence, no overlap exists be-

tween the training and test face images. Figures 4 and 5

show examples of both databases.

Out of the 10 images per subject of the ORL face data- base, first n were

Figure 4 Example FERET images used in our experiments. The top two rows the examples of training images used and the bottom row shows the examples of test images.

Out of the 10 images per subject of the ORL face data- base, first n were

Figure 5 Example ORL images used in our experiments.

Table 1 shows the result of using GLCM column vector

directly (direct GLCM) on ORL database using L 1 norm

distance, L1 . Reduced number of gray levels has been

used for GLCM dimensionality reduction. The training set

has been formed by using n=5 samples of each individual,

where the test set has been formed by using the remaining

  • 5 samples. The results indicate that the direct GLCM ap-

proach outperforms the Haralick features based approach.

It is also, important to note that, the dimensionality reduc-

tion based on the reduction of the number of gray levels

does not change the recognition performance significantly

as we reduce the number of gray levels from 256 down to

16 levels. Highest performance is achieved by using 64

gray levels.

Table 2 shows the results on FERET database using L 1

norm distance. Different number of gray levels has been

used for GLCM dimensionality reduction. The training set

has been formed by using 2 samples of each subject,

where the test set has been formed by using the remaining

  • 1 sample per subject. Similarly, the results indicate that

the direct GLCM approach outperforms the Haralick fea-

tures based approach. Highest performance is achieved

by using 32 gray levels.

Table 1 Face recognition performance (%) for different number of levels using ORL database and similarity measures: L1 , with 5 training images / 5 testing images

 

Number of Gray Levels

 

Approach

256

128

64

32

16

8

4

Haralick features

71.90

70.20

70.50

74.90

79.50

78.30

69.60

Direct GLCM

95.10

96.00

96.30

95.90

95.20

91.20

70.40

Table 2 Face recognition performance (%) for different number of levels using FERET database and similarity measures: L1 , with 2 training Images / 1 testing Images

 

Number of Gray Levels

 

Approach

256

128

64

32

16

8

4

Haralick features

29.33

29.67

26.17

26.67

34.50

36.83

13.16

Direct GLCM

88.67

90.67

91.67

92.33

88.67

74.83

14.33

The results in both tables indicate that, the proposed direct

GLCM method is much more suitable method than the

method using well-known Haralick features. The GLCM

scalability, provided by the scalable number of gray levels

N g , is an important flexibility.

An important result, which can be observed in Tables 1 and

2, is that in some cases when the co-occurrence matrix be-

comes smaller due to the use of reduced number of gray

levels, N g , the recognition performance of direct GLCM

approach slightly increases. This can be due to the quantiza-

tion process which suppresses the noise in the input image

that helps to increase the recognition performance.

100 95 90 85 80 75 70 NumLevels 256 NumLevels 128 65 NumLevels 64 NumLevels 32
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
NumLevels 256
NumLevels 128
65
NumLevels 64
NumLevels 32
NumLevels 16
60
NumLevels 8
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Recognition Rate

Number of training images

Figure 6 Face recognition performance of the Direct GLCM for ORL database, using different number of training images and different number of levels for generation of GLCM matrix, with the L1 distance measure.

Figures 6 shows the performance of the direct GLCM

method for changing number of training samples in the

training set for different number of gray levels. The results

show that the recognition performance of the proposed sys-

tem changes slightly as we reduce the number of gray levels

from 256 to 16. Although, this observation is specific to

these two datasets and cannot be generalized, the results

indicate the scalability of the proposed direct GLCM ap-

proach.

Table 3 compares the performance of the proposed direct

GLCM based recognition system with the state of the art

techniques PCA and LDA by using the ORL face data-

base. The results demonstrate the superiority of the pro-

614
614

posed direct GLCM based face recognition system over

the well know face recognition techniques PCA and LDA.

Table 3 Face recognition performance (%) of PCA, LDA, direct GLCM and Haralick features for different number of training images using ORL database with L1 and N g =256.

# Train

Haralick

Direct

Images

Features

GLCM

PCA

LDA

  • 1 60.11

42.33

61.44

35.83

  • 2 78.69

56.50

74.63

76.88

  • 3 87.43

62.86

82.86

87.57

  • 4 92.33

68.33

88.42

93.25

  • 5 95.10

71.90

90.00

95.10

  • 6 96.38

74.50

91.13

96.35

  • 7 96.83

74.67

94.00

96.67

  • 8 98.25

76.00

94.50

97.25

  • 9 99.50

76.00

97.50

98.50

 

VI.

CONCLUSIONS

 

In this paper, we introduced a new face recognition method,

direct GLCM, which performs recognition by using gray-

level co-occurrence matrix. The direct GLCM method is

very competitive and outperforms the state of the art face

recognition techniques such as PCA and LDA. Using

smaller number of gray levels made the algorithm faster

and, at the same time, preserved the high recognition rate.

This can be due to the process of quantization which helps

in suppressing the noise of the images existing in higher

gray-levels. Recognition in Table 1 for ORL database gen-

erates the highest performance at N g =64 which corresponds

to a moderate number of gray levels in image representa-

tion. Same argument holds for FERET database as the rec-

ognition was the highest at N g =32 in Table 2. In general, it

is obvious from the results that the direct GLCM is a robust

method for face recognition with performance higher than

PCA and LDA techniques.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Kirby, & L. Sirovich, Application of the Karhunen-Loeve Proce- dure for the Characterization of Human Faces, IEEE PAMI, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 103-108, 0162-8828, January 1990. [2] L. Sirovich, & M. Kirby, Low-Dimensional Procedure for the Char- acterization of Human Faces, JOSA, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 519-524, 1084- 7529, March 1987. [3] M. Turk, & A. Pentland, Eigenfaces for Recognition, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 3, pp. 71-86. 0898-929X, 1991. [4] A. Pentland, B. Moghaddam, & T. Starner, View based and modular eigenspaces for face recognition, In Proceedings of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 84–91, 0-8186-5825-8, IEEE Computer Society, Seattle, USA, June 1994. [5] P. Belhumeur, J. Hespanha, & D. Kriegman, Eigenfaces vs. Fisher- faces: Recognition Using Class Specific Linear Projection. IEEE PAMI, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 771-720, 0162-8828, July 1997. [6] W. Zhao, R. Chellappa, & N. Nandhakumarm, Empirical perform- ance analysis of linear discriminant classifiers. In Proceedings of Com-

puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 164-169, 0-8186-5825-8, IEEE Computer Society, Santa Barbara, Canada, June 1998. [7] P. J. Philipps, H. Moon, S. Rivzi, & P. Ross, The Feret evaluation methodology fro face-recognition algorithms, IEEE PAMI, vol 22, pp. 1090–1104, 2000.

[8]

The Olivetti Database; http://www.cam-orl.co.uk/facedatabase.html.

[9] R. C. Gonzalez, & R. E. Woods, Digital Image Processing, 3rd Ed. Prentice Hall, 2008. [10] L. Wiskott, J.-M. Fellous, N. Kruger, and C. von der Malsburg, “Face recognition by elastic bunch graph matching,” IEEE PAMI., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 775–779, July 1997.

[11] C. Liu and H. Wechsler, “Independent component analysis of Gabor features for face recognition,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 919–928, July 2003. [12] B. Manjunath, R. Chellappa, C. von der Malsburg, A feature based approach to face recognition. In: Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 373–378, 1992. [13] R.M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam, I. Dinstein, Textural features for

image classification, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. vol. 3, no. 6, pp.

610–621, 1973. [14] A. Gelzinisa,A. Verikasa,b,, M. Bacauskienea, Increasing the dis-

crimination power of the co-occurrence matrix-based features, Pattern

Recognition, vol. 40, pp. 2367-2372, 2004.

[15] R.F. Walker, P.T. Jackway, D. Longstaff, Genetic algorithm opti-

mization of adaptive multi-scale GLCM features, Int. J. Pattern Recogni-

tion Artif. Intell. vol. 17, no. 1, pp.17-39, 2003.

[16] N. Jhanwar, S. Chaudhuri, G. Seetharaman, B. Zavidovique, Con-

tent based image retrieval using motif cooccurrence matrix, Image Vision

Comput. vol. 22, pp. 1211-1220, 2004

[17] P. Chang, J. Krumm. Object recognition with color cooccurrence

histograms. IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, Fort Collins, co, June 1999.

615
615