TY - JOUR
T1 - Running max/min filters using 1+o(1) comparisons per sample
AU - Yuan, Hao
AU - Atallah, Mikhail J.
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - A running max (or min) filter asks for the maximum or (minimum) elements within a fixed-length sliding window. The previous best deterministic algorithm (developed by Gil and Kimmel, and refined by Coltuc) can compute the 1D max filter using 1.5+o(1) comparisons per sample in the worst case. The best-known algorithm for independent and identically distributed input uses 1.25+o(1) expected comparisons per sample (by Gil and Kimmel). In this work, we show that the number of comparisons can be reduced to 1+o(1) comparisons per sample in the worst case. As a consequence of the new max/min filters, the opening (or closing) filter can also be computed using 1+o(1) comparisons per sample in the worst case, where the previous best work requires 1.5+o(1) comparisons per sample (by Gil and Kimmel); and computing the max and min filters simultaneously can be done in 2+o(1) comparisons per sample in the worst case, where the previous best work (by Lemire) requires three comparisons per sample. Our improvements over the previous work are asymptotic, that is, the number of comparisons is reduced only when the window size is large. © 2011 IEEE.
AB - A running max (or min) filter asks for the maximum or (minimum) elements within a fixed-length sliding window. The previous best deterministic algorithm (developed by Gil and Kimmel, and refined by Coltuc) can compute the 1D max filter using 1.5+o(1) comparisons per sample in the worst case. The best-known algorithm for independent and identically distributed input uses 1.25+o(1) expected comparisons per sample (by Gil and Kimmel). In this work, we show that the number of comparisons can be reduced to 1+o(1) comparisons per sample in the worst case. As a consequence of the new max/min filters, the opening (or closing) filter can also be computed using 1+o(1) comparisons per sample in the worst case, where the previous best work requires 1.5+o(1) comparisons per sample (by Gil and Kimmel); and computing the max and min filters simultaneously can be done in 2+o(1) comparisons per sample in the worst case, where the previous best work (by Lemire) requires three comparisons per sample. Our improvements over the previous work are asymptotic, that is, the number of comparisons is reduced only when the window size is large. © 2011 IEEE.
KW - closing
KW - dilation
KW - erosion
KW - Mathematical morphology
KW - opening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80054915025&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/record/pubmetrics.uri?eid=2-s2.0-80054915025&origin=recordpage
U2 - 10.1109/TPAMI.2011.183
DO - 10.1109/TPAMI.2011.183
M3 - RGC 21 - Publication in refereed journal
SN - 0162-8828
VL - 33
SP - 2544
EP - 2548
JO - IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
JF - IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
IS - 12
M1 - 6007140
ER -