610 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. 23, NO.
2, MARCHIAPRIL 1993
For a well-behaved response, altering the deadbands, I M F . and
O M F in such a way that the steady-state equations are not satis-
fied, renders the response oscillatory and, at times, unstable. These
equations represent sufficient but not necessary conditions for a good
steady -state.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a particular three-term fuzzy controller whose rule-
base was derived through fuzzy addition is analyzed. The decompo-
sition of the control element is not an easy task. The use of fuzzy
addition facilitated this decomposition because of the symmetrical
features that exist in the look-up table. However, under a center of
gravity defuzzification, the conventional fuzzy logic controller was
shown in [5] to be the sum of a multilevel relay and a nonlinear PI
controller. Thus, the analysis carried out in this paper can be utilized
to account for the effects of the multilevel relay in the system. If
the effects of the nonlinear PI controller can be delineated, then by
using superposition the overall effects of the fuzzy controller can be
obtained. So, the analysis of this paper, although particular to the
case selected, is very useful for a future analysis of a fuzzy logic
controller. Moreover, if a system designer wanted a quick insight
into the behavior of this system, the exponential-input describing
function (EIDF) transient solution coupled with the SIDF steady-
state limit cycle solution surely do provide the required information.
System compensation could then be designed on an analytic basis
using the equations given in this paper, to be checked by subsequent
computer simulations.
REFERENCES
W. J. M. Kickert and E. H. Mamdani, ‘‘Analysis of a fuzzy logic
controller,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub-
lishing Co., 1978, pp. 29-44.
G. Abdelnour, C. H. Chang, F. H. Huang, and J. Y. Cheung, “Design of
a fuzzy controller using input and output mapping factors,” ZEEE Trans.
Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. 21, pp. 952-960, Sept./Oct. 1991.
- and ~ F ( s as
, “Application of describing functions in the transient response
analysis of a three-term controller,” IEEE Trans. Syst.. Man, Cybern.,
pp. 603-606 this issue.
A. Gelb and W. E. Van der Velde, Multiple-Input Describing Functions
and Nonlinear System Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Electronic
Sciences Series, 1968.
H. Ying, W. Siler, and J. Buckley, “Fuzzy control theory: A nonlinear
case,” Int. Federation of Automat. Contr., pp. 513-520, 1990.
Vague Sets
Wen-Lung Gau and Daniel J. Buehrer
Abstract-A vague set is a set of objects, each of which has a grade-of
membership whose value is a continuous subinterval of [0,1]. Such a set
is characterized by a truth-membership function and a falsemembership
function. The notion of inclusion, union, intersection, and complement are
extended to such sets, and various properties of vague sets are established.
Finally, convex vague sets are introduced.
Manuscript received May 24, 1991; revised July 25, 1992.
The authors are with the Institute of Computer Science and Information En-
gineering, National Chung Cheng University, Min Hsiung, Chia-Yi, Taiwan,
Republic of China.
IEEE Log Number 9206205.
0018-9472/93$03.00 0 1993 IEEE
I. INTRODUCTION
A fuzzy set F , as introduced by Zadeh [l], is a class of objects X
along with a grade of membership function. This membership func-
tion p ~ ( z )T . E -Y,assigns to each object a grade of membership
ranging between zero and one. Zadeh [l]assigns each object a single
value. This single value combines the evidence for z E X and the
evidence against s E X , without indicating how much there is of
each. The single number tells us nothing about its accuracy.
Type 2 fuzzy sets [2] have membership functions that map from
a set X to a type 1 fuzzy set on the interval [0,1]. One such type 2
sets are @-fuzzy sets, which map from X to the set of closed
intervals in [0,1]. Such an interval-valued fuzzy set [3, pp. 13-14]
is characterized by a membership function p ~ ( s ) z, E X , which
assigns to each object a grade of membership which is a continuous
interval of real numbers in the range [0,1], rather than a single
value. We also assign to each object a grade of membership which
is a subinterval of [0,1]. This subinterval keeps track of both
the favoring evidence and the opposing evidence. However, our
definition of subinterval containment is different from the definitions
of containment for other interval-valued fuzzy sets. Gratten-Guiness
[4] defined interval containment in the natural way [a, b] I [c, d ]
iff a 2 c and b 5 d. However, such a definition does not satisfy
Theorems 1 and 2 below. Ponsard [SI defined containment as a linear
ordering, but DeMorgan’s Law therefore did not hold.
Quinlan [6] introduced two values, t ( P ) and f(P),characterizing
a proposition P. t (P ) is a greatest lower bound on the probability
of P derived from the evidence for P and f ( P ) is a greatest lower
bound on -P derived from the evidence against P.
We also use a truth membership function, t ~and, false membership
function f~ to record the lower bounds on p ~ These . lower bounds
are used to create a subinterval of [o, 11, namely [ t F ( Z ) , 1 - f ~ ( s ) ] ,
to generalize the ~ . P ( sof) fuzzy sets. The lower bound and upper
bound of this subinterval are f F ( z ) and 1 - f ~ ( z )respectively.
,
These interval bounds may be derived from the bounds on ~ F ( z )
) follows:
-
1) fF(S) 5 PF(2).
2) fF(S) 5 P,(X)
fF(S) I 1- P F ( Z )
e 1- f d z ) 2 P F ( 2 ) .
From 1) and 2), we obtain t F ( J-) I p~ (2) I 1 - f~ (z). It is clear
that the interval is a subinterval of [0,1] since 0 is a lower bound of
all membership functions and
11. VAGUESETS
Definition Sets’
Let X be a space of points (objects), with a generic element of
- - __ - __ - hv
-y- denoted
-,T.
--
A vague set in is characterized by a truth-membership
function t v and a false-membership function fv. t v ( x ) is a lower
bound on the grade of membership of z derived from the evidence for
T , and f ~ (s) 1 is a lower bound on the negation of z derived from the
evidence against z. tr/ ( z ) and f l (~z ) both associate a real number in
+
the interval [0,1] with each point in X , where t v ( x ) f v ( z ) 5 1.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. 23, NO. 2, MARCHIAPRIL 1993 611

Definition 4-Containment: A vague set A is contained in the

other vague set B , A C B , if and only if

It may not at first seem obvious why we employ this definition

of containment rather than the more obvious “subinterval” relation
- ( t 4 5 f B . 1 - f4 2 1 - f ~ ) However, . the definition makes more
xo X
sense when viewed in terms of the lower bounds for the truth/false
Fig. 1. Illustration of vague set in R1. membership functions. The statement A B has the meaning that
the lower bound on the truth of A also serves as a lower bound on the
truth of B ( f 4 <_ f B ) , and the lower bound on the falsity of B serves
That is a s a l o w e r b o u n d o n t h e f a l s i t y o f d ( f s 5 f~ e l - f q 5 1 - f ~ ) .
When the truth/falsity values are restricted to be 0 or 1, the relation
f \ : s + [O. 11
-4 C B reverts to the traditional definition that s E A + r E B ,
f r . : s -+ [O. 11. and s @ B ---t s @ A.
When we view the interval as defining lower bounds for the
This approach bounds the grade of membership of s to a subinterval truth/false membership functions, the interval has a physical inter-
[f\ (s), 1 - f\ ( s ) ] of [O, 11. pretation. Other definitions of interval containment do not correspond
In other words, the exact grade of membership h c ~( s )of s may be to this “real world” meaning. For example, a linear ordering of these
unknown, but is bounded by f i ( s )5 ( s )5 1 - fl (I),where intervals as defined in [2, p. 651, tries to compare what should be
+
f b (s) f r ( 2 ) 5 1. incomparable. If the interval is interpreted in terms of the truth/false
The precision of our knowledge about s is immediately clear, with membership functions, then the linear ordering [ a , b] 5 [c,d] iff either
our uncertainty characterized by the difference 1 - f~ (s)- tr (s). b 5 d or ( b = d and a 5 c) [2, p. 651 does not satisfy a voting model
If this is small, our knowledge about s is relatively precise; if it is of evidence. For example, according to this definition, [0.4,0.7] 5
large, we know correspondingly little. If 1- fr (s)is equal to f 1 (.r ), [0.2,0.8]. However,
our knowledge about x is exact, and the theory reverts back to that of [0.4,0.7] can be interpreted as “the vote for a resolution is 4 in
fuzzy sets. If 1- ( s )and t I (s)are both equal to 1or 0, depending favor, 3 against, and 3 abstentions.”
f ~ r

on whether s does or does not belong to I’, our knowledge about s [0.2,0.8] can be interpreted as “the vote for a resolution is 2 in
is very exact and the theory reverts back to that of ordinary sets (Le., favor, 2 against, and 6 abstentions.”
sets with two-valued characteristic functions). The number in favor for [0.4,0.7] is greater than for [0.2,0.7], but
A vague set is in R1 is illustrated in Fig. 1. the linear ordering gives a “truth” to [0.4,0.7] which is less than
When X is continuous, a vague set 1- can be written as the “truth” of [0.2,0.8]. Hence, [0.4,0.7] and [0.2,0.8] are not really
comparable, and this definition is not true in the real world. For this
reason, some restrictions must be added, making the containment
relation only a partial ordering. Therefore, Definition 4 is used. Now,
When X is discrete, a vague set I’ can be written as a comparable example using Definition 4 is as follows: [0.4,0.7] 5
[ O S , 0.81, since
n
[0.4,0.7] can be interpreted as “the vote for a resolution is 4 in
I*= C
t=1
[t\ (st), 1 - fx ( s t ) ] / s L . .r, E -Y. (4) favor, 3 against, and 3 abstentions.”
[0.5,0.8] can be interpreted as “the vote for a resolution is 5 in
For example, assume that X = [I,2 , . . ..lo]. SMALL is a vague favor, 2 against, and 3 abstentions.”
Furthermore, the number in favor for [0.5,0.8] is greater than
set of X defined by
for [0.4,0.7] and the number opposed for [0.5,0.8] is less than
small = [l,1]/1 + [0.9,1]/2 + [0.6.0.8]/3 for [0.4,0.7]. Hence [0.4,0.7] and [ O S , 0.81 are comparable and
Definition 4 is true in the real world.
+
[0.3,0.5]/4 + [0.1.0.2]/5. Definition 5: Two vague sets A and B are equal, written as
A = B , if and only if rl C_ B , and B A; that is
We start with several definitions involving vague sets that are
obvious extensions of the corresponding definitions for ordinary sets t 4 = f B (9)
and fuzzy sets. 1-fA =1-fR. (10)
Definition 2: A vague set is empty if and only it its truth-
membership and false-membership functions are identically zero Definition 6-Union: The union of two vague sets A and B with
on X . respective truth-membership and false-membership functions t A , f4,
Definition 3: The complement of a vague set A is denoted by A’ t g and fB is a vague set C , written as C = A U B , whose truth-
and is defined by membership and false-membership functions are related to those of
A and B by
tA’(s) =f4(s) (5)
1-f4t(s)=l-f4(.r). (6) tc = m a x ( t 4 , t ~ ) (11)
1 - fr = max( 1 - f 1.1 - f ~ =) 1 - nlin(fA, fs). (12)
r ) 1 - f 4 / ( s=)
In the sequel, instead of writing t A i ( s )= f ~ ( and
1 - t 4 ( s ) for all s in s,we shall write more simply f 4 , = f A , A more intuitively appealing way of defining the union is the
1-fA‘ = 1-f4. following: The union of two vague sets A and B is the smallest
612 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. 23, NO. 2, MARCHIAPRIL 1993

vague set containing both =I and B. More precisely, if D is any

vague set which contains both A and B , then it also contains the
union of .A and B . Now, we show this definition is equivalent to
Definition 2.6.
Theorem I: d U B is the smallest vague set containing both -4
and B .
Proof: C as defined by (11) and (12) contains both d-I and B,
s i n c e m a x ( t 4 . t B ) 2 tl,niax(tA.ts) 2 t s , i i i a x ( l - f 4 . 1 -
f ~ 2) 1 - f4, and max(1 - f 4 . 1 - fs)2 1 - f ~ .
Furthermore, if D is any vague set containing both A and B, then
t o 2 t l , t o 2 t ~1 - , fn 2 1 - f 4 , and 1 - fn 2 1 - f ~ . Fig. 2. Illustration of the union and intersection of two vague sets in R1.
Hence
to 2 IllaX(f4.tR) = fc function of the intersection is composed of curve segments 5 and 6.
The false-membership function of the intersection is composed of
and curve segments 7 and 8.
1 - f~ 2 iiiax(1- f4.1- f ~ =)1 - fc. Notice that although vague sets are interval-valued sets, the defini-
tions of union, intersection, and complement are completely different
which implies that C D . c Q.E.D. than the definitions for interval-valued sets. For instance, the interval-
Definition 7-Intersection: The intersection of two vague sets based union would involve curve segments 3, 4, 5 , and 6.
A and B with respective truth-membership and false-membership Theorem 3: .-I C B +-+ B’ C -4‘.
functions t A , f4,t~ and f~ is a vague set C , written as C = A n B ,
whose truth-membership and false-membership functions are related
Proof: -4 B c t 4 5 t B . 1 - f, 5 1 - f~
e fs 5 f 4 . 1 - f g 5 1 - f 4 e B’ C A’. Q.E.D.
to those of A and B by
Theorem 4: d CB u .-I n B = -4 e A UB = B
tc. = iiiin(t 1. t g j (13) Proof:
1 - f r = m i n ( l - f l . l - f ~ ) = 1 - m a x ( f 4 . f ~ ) . (14)
A cB
e t 4 5tB. 1 - f 4 5 1-fB
It is easy to show that the intersection of .-I and B is the largest u tlnR = niin(f 1 . f ~=
) t~
vague set which is contained in both .-I and B . More precisely, if
D is any vague set which is contained in both A and B , then it is l - f . \ n ~ = ~ i i i i i ( l - f ~ . l - f ~l j- f=q
also contained in the intersection of .-I and B. Now, we show this f,lug= l l l a X ( f 4 . f ~ )= t~
definition is equivalent to Definition 7. 1 - f l u s = iilax(1 - f l . 1 - fs)= 1 - fR
Theorem 2: .-I n B is the largest vague set contained in both A e A ~ B = AA. U B = B . Q.E.D.
and B.
Proof: C as defined by (13) and (14) is contained in both -4
111. S O M E PROPERTIES OF UNION, INTERSECTION
and B since
AND COMPLEMENTATION
niin(t4.tB) 5 t ? . niin(t4.tg) 5 tg With the operations of union, intersection, and complementation
iiiiii(l-fl.l-fB)5l-f4 defined on vague sets as in Section 11, it is easy to extend many of
the basic identities which hold for ordinary sets and fuzzy sets. In fact,
and the vague sets defined on a domain D with the union, intersection,
niiii(1- f4.1 - f B )5 1 and complementation operators form a DeMorgan algebra over D ,
fB.
as is shown by the properties below.
Furthermore, if D is any vague set contained in both A and Property 1--Commutativity: .-I U B = B U .-I. d n B = B n A
B, then Proof: Follows quickly from commutativity of min and max.
fD 5 f4. f D 5 fg. 1 - fo 5 1 - f 4 Property 2-Associativity: -4 U ( B U C j = (.-I U B) U C. .A n
( B n c )= (.-InB)nC.
and Proof: Follows quickly from associativity of min and max.
1-fD 5 I-fB Property 3: Idempotency:.-l U -4 = .-I. A n ’4 = A.
Proof: Follows quickly from idempotence of min and max.
Hence
Property 4-Distributivity: .-UI( B n C ) = ( A U B j n (dU C).
tn 5 n i i n ( t 4 . t B ) = tc A ~ ~ B U=C( .)- l n B j u ( . A n C )
and Proof: Follows quickly from distributivity of min and max.
Property 5: -4 n 0 = 0. -4 U .X = S. whcrc 0 =
1 - fn 5 inin(1 - f l . 1 - f ~ =)1 - fr. [O.O]. and s = [l.11 Q.E.D.
which implies that D G C. Q.E.D. Proof:
The intersection and union of two vague sets in R1 are illustrated 1) t4n0 = niin(t.l,O) = D
in Fig. 2. The truth-membership function of the union is composed 1- f4m = iniii(1 - f4.0) = 0.
of curve segments 1 and 2. The false-membership function of the 2) t . u . y = niax(t4.1) = 1
union is composed of curve segments 3 and 4. The truth-membership 1 - f s u x = inas( 1 - f . 4 . 1 ) = 1. Q.E.D.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. 23, NO. 2, MARCHiAPRIL 1993 613

fdx), lfdx) Convex vague set Non-convex vague set t4(1.2), o f = 1 - f 4 ( 1 1 j 5 1 - f 4 ( S 2 j , then I.:, E re and
A Xa.1+ ( 1 - X j.r2 E r, by the convexity of r,.
1$4&1+Cl-Xzr2, Hence
1 -
t4(X.rl + (1 - X j s z ) 2 at = t I ( s 1 ) = niin(fA(.rl).t4(s2)j
1-fA(~.?1+(1-XjSZj >of=1-f4(Xl)

= niin(1 - f A ( S l ) , 1 - f 4 ( 2 2 ) ) .
A* Conversely, if =I is convex in the sense of the second definition
and c ) ~= t l(sl),o f = 1 - fa(sl),then may be regarded as
12
11
the set of all points for which t A ( s z ) 2 t 4 ( . r l j r 1 - f~(sz)2
Fig 3 C o n v e x and non-convex v a g u e sets in E' 1 - f 4 ( . r 1 ) . In virtue of (16) and (17), every point of the form
Asl + (1- Xj.rp, 0 5 X 5 1, is also in r, and hence rnis a
convex set. Q.E.D.
Property 6-Identity: -4U0 = .-I. -4n-Y = -4, where 0 = [O,O],
Theorem 5: If A and B are convex, so is their intersection.
and I = [l.11
Proof: Let C = A n B , then
Proof:

Property 7-Absorption: .-I U ( A n B j = -4. A n (-4 U B ) = 1 - fs(X.r1 + (1- Xjs2)).

Proof: Since -4 and B are convex:

tA(X.r1 + (1- X j s 2 j 2 niin(t4(1.1).f4(.cz))

1) t4"R = Inax(t.\.tR)
1- f 4 U ~= niax(1 - f z . 1 - f B j = 1 - niin(f4.fRj
u ti ZUB)t = niin(f 1. f~ j = t l l n B /
1 - f( l U B ) i = 1 - mas(f 4 . t B j = inin( 1 - t 1 . 1 - t R j =
f 1'"B'.
2) f i n R = niiii(t I . f R j
1 - f m B = niiii(1 - f z . 1 - f B j = 1 - n i a s ( f 4 . f B j
u ti InB)' = n l a ~ ( f ,f. R ) = t I'"B'
l - f ( I n ~ )=l 1 - n i i i i ( t 1 . t ~ )= n i a x ( l - t q . 1 - t g j =
f I'UB'. Q.E.D.
Property 9-~nvolution: ( ~ ' j ' = .-I
Proof: t = f i . 1 - f 4 f = 1 - t I r u t( = t 1.1-
f ( 4 y = 1- f l . Q.E.D.
Definition 9StrongZy Convex: A vague set A is strongly convex
if for any two distinct points s1 and s 2 , and any X in the open
IV. CONVEXITY
interval (0,l)
We assume for concreteness that .Y is a real Euclidean space E".
Definition 8: Convexity: A vague set -4 is convex if and only if + (1 - X).rzj > r n i n ( t ~ ( r l j . t s ( z 2 ) ) (18)
t / L ( h 1

the sets rc, defined by 1 - fA(X.rl + (1 - j > min( 1 -

Xj1.2 f4(1.1), 1 - f 4 ( . ~ 2 ) ) . (19)
r,,= {.r l t 4 ( . r j 2 n r . i- f l ( . r j 2 n f } (15)
Theorem 6: If A-Iand B are strongly convex, so is their intersec-
are convex for all a,,n in the interval (O,1].
An alternative and more direct definition of convexity is the
following: =I is convex if and only if Proof: The proof is similar to that of Theorem 5.

for all and , r ~in X and all X in [0, I]. This is illustrated in Fig. 3 from ordinary sets, fuzzy sets, and interval-valued sets. The notions of
for 7) = 1. inclusion, union, intersection, complement, relation, and composition
To show the equivalence between the above definitions, note that if have been extended to vague sets. Finally, convex vague sets and
-4 is convex in the sense of the first definition, and nf = f 4 ( s1) 5 strongly convex sets have been introduced.
614 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. 23, NO. 2, MARCHIAPRIL 1993
The major advantage of vague sets over fuzzy sets is that vague
sets separate the positive and negative evidence for membership of
an element in the set. We not only have an estimate of how likely it
is that an element is in the set, but we also have an lower and upper
bound on this likelihood. This lower/upper bound can be used to
perform constraint propagation. For instance, constraint propagation
can be used to detect inconsistencies in assignments of intervals to
Boolean expressions involving the sets.
We are currently using constraint propagation to generalize the
methods of first-order automatic theorem proving so as to find a
fixed-point minimal-sized possibility interval for each predicate in
the input clauses, or to find inconsistencies, if they exist [7].
REFERENCES
L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets,” Inform. Control, vol. 8, pp. 338-353, 1965.
D. Dubois and H. Prade, Fuzzy Sets andsystems: Theory andilpplications.
New York: Academic, 1980.
G. J. Klir and T. A. Folger, Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988.
I. Grattan-Guiness,“Fuzzy membership mapped onto intervals and many-
valued quantities,” Zeitschr. Math. Logik. and Grundlagen d. Math.,
Bd. 22, S, pp. 149-160, 1975.
C. Ponsard, “Hierarchie des places centrales et graphes +-flous,” Environ.
Plann. A 9, pp. 1233-1252, 1977.
J. R. Quinlan, “Inferno: A cautious approach to uncertain inference,”
Computer J., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 255-268, 1983.
D. J. Buehrer, “Vague logic: A first-order extension of interval probability
theory,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop Imprecise and Approximate Computa-
tion, Dec. 1, 1992, Phoenix, AZ, pp. 83-87.
Intrinsic Parameters for Surface Representation
Using Deformable Models
Baba C. Vemuri and Ravikanth Malladi
Abstruct- Three-dimensional viewpoint invariance is an important
requirement on the representation of surfaces for recognition tasks.
Parameterized surfaces possess this desirable property. In general, the
parameters in a parametric surface representation can be arbitrarily
defined. A canonical, intrinsic parameterization provides a consistent,
invariant form for describing surfaces. Our goal here is to define and
construct such a parameterization. A new technique for achieving this
goal is presented by using an elastically deformable model. The salient
features of our method are that it provides a unified and general
framework for reparameterization of a surface and easily allows for
incorporation of multiview data sets. The canonical parameterization of
the surface is defined in terms of the surface lines of curvature. Depth
constraints are first imposed as an external force field on the deformable
model that molds itself to be consistent with the data. Principal vectors
computed from this conformed model surface are then imposed as a
force field on the parameter curves of the model. The parameter curves
deform to become tangential to the principal vectors thereby yielding an
invariant surface parameterized by the lines of curvature. Extension of
the canonical parametric grid to multiple views is then demonstrated by
incorporating depth and curvature constraints from multiple views.
Manuscript received April 21, 1991; revised July 18, 1992. This work was
supported in part by National Science Foundation under the contract No. EET-
8810751.
The author is with the Department of Computer & Information Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
IEEE Log Number 9206200.
0018-9472/93$03.00 0 1993 IEEE
1 - -
I. INTRODUCTION
Few problems in computational vision have drawn more attention
than the representation of surfaces. A desirable property of any
surface representation is that it be invariant with respect to rigid trans-
formations of the surface in 3-space, otherwise one cannot guarantee
the integrity of the representation under changes in viewpoint. This
paper considers the computation of invariant surface representations
given 3-D depth information from single and multiple views. Our
approach makes use of an elastically deformable model that offers the
geometric flexibility to satisfy a plethora of multimodal and multiview
constraints. We specialize this model to assume an initial cylindrical
shape as in Terzopoulos et al. [21]. We dub the process of surface
fitting with elastically deformable surface as dynamic surface fitting.
In dynamic surface fitting, all the data are transformed into externally
applied forces. Constraints from single as well as multiple views are
applied as external forces to mold the elastic tube model into a shape
consistent with the data.
Surface reconstruction typically precedes the symbolic represen-
tation of surfaces. The reconstruction process integrates raw shape
data from multiple visual sources. Using this information it generates
a dense, coherent surface. Several variational reconstruction methods
have been proposed. An efficient noninvariant method was developed
by Terzopoulos [19]. Blake [2] pointed out that the noninvariance
was inherent to the functional used in the variational principle
formulation, which quantifies the small deflection bending energy of
a thin flexible plate. He proposed an invariant functional involving
the principal curvatures (minimum and maximum normal curvatures)
of the surface. This is known as the large deflection bending energy
of a thin plate.
A problem with Blake’s approach is that the large deflection energy
is a nonquadratic functional that, moreover, is nonconvex. The result
is a difficult, nonlinear system of equations with multiple suboptimal
solutions. Blake and Zisserman [3] use a deterministic method for
finding the global optimum, which they claim compares favorably
against Monte Carlo techniques such as simulated annealing [ 111.
Like ofher methods for solving large nonlinear systems, however,
the computational complexity of their algorithm is equivalent to the
solution of many linear systems of comparable size. By contrast,
noninvariant reconstruction as in [ 191 uses a quadratic functional,
and finding the unique minimum requires the solution of a single
linear system.
In this paper, we develop a viewpoint invariant surface repre-
sentation scheme whose computational complexity is closer to that
of noninvariant reconstruction. To achieve our goal of invariance,
however, we must dissociate the surface description from the viewer
centered coordinate frame. This can be done easily by employing an
intrinsically parameterized surface energy functional in the variational
reconstruction. We adopt an intrinsic parameterization for the surface
that depends purely upon the surface shape and is thereby invariant
with respect to rigid motion. We express the resultant surface in a
parametric form, where the parameters are curves in predetermined
directions along the surface [24]-[26], [28]. To obtain a unique
parameterization, we choose these directions to be the principal
directions, which correspond to the minimum and maximum normal
curvatures of the surface. These directions by Euler’s theorem [9]
are mutually orthogonal. Our final representation is therefore an
orthogonally gridded surface where the grid coordinates are along the
integral curves of the principal vector fields. We call this a canonical
representation. Orthogonal grids are useful in applications involving